3 ms·

You can totally have a blind signature based scheme that doesn't have some of the flaws which are present with paper ballots. Some of the requirements aren't me

• pedrocr 9y ago
  With enough effort you could implement something that still requires printing a receipt but doesn't require the ballot box. The identity issue isn't even a problem in most modern democracies. But that system would be less efficient and be easier to seed discredit since normal people don't understand it. That gives you a riot or two quite quickly. That's the other properly of paper and ballot box that technologues dismiss way too easily. >90% of the population would be able to run a paper election successfully and yet would be hopeless at understanding a complex crypto scheme. That means you quickly lose a key property of elections which is that whoever lost actually accepts that result. From the previous discussion: "Electronic voting is the reverse FizzBuzz. FizzBuzz tests if you know the absolute basics about technology to implement something extremely simple. Electronic voting tests if you are able to reject the use of technology when it doesn't add any advantage and instead creates very hard to solve failure modes. Voting benefits from the use of the extremely simple ballot and box. It benefits from it not being programmable and from the counting method being something that almost all the population is able to carry out let alone understand."