From the intro: > Elections hold a vulnerability that can bring democracies to a halt. [This vulnerability] makes it possible for people to elect a malicious a

From the intro: > Elections hold a vulnerability that can bring democracies to a halt. [This vulnerability] makes it possible for people to elect a malicious authority that will later refuse to organize future elections. > This paper is […] aimed to tackle this problem from a cryptographic point of view. […] The algorithm still requires authorities to inscribe voters. This sounds pretty useless. First, it requires an _already_ honest authority to register people in the system before any elections can take place. In addition, this authority needs to be trusted _forever_, as it needs to add more people to the system as they are born. Even if this problem was solved, this paper doesn't even question what power means. If a ruling authority already has the power to stop regular elections from happening, it also has the power to ignore any results that come out of this scheme, to pressure people to not vote through new laws or force, and to imprison anyone who does. An example (and this applies irrespectively of what opinions you hold about it): in Spain, a referendum was convoked to decide about the independence of the region of Catalonia. The government declared this referendum unconstitutional, although it still took place. People voted for independence and won. Still, the results were void, and the people who convoked the referendum are now sitting in court, charged with rebellion. Does it really matter if this referendum was held using physical ballots and boxes, or using digital signatures? You can't remove a central authority just by pretending it doesn't exist.