Yes, a further answer might be: It's tricky to combine convincing people that their own votes were counted, with making people's votes anonymous, and with conv

Yes, a further answer might be: It's tricky to combine convincing people that their own votes were counted, with making people's votes anonymous, and with convincing people that only registered voters were able to cast votes (and only one vote each). There is computer science research that tries to address this, but it's subtle, and sometimes people are concerned that voters would be unpersuaded that the math is right. Two other general problems with online voting which are as hard, or even harder, with blockchain-based voting: (1) If people are voting from their own devices, those devices might be hacked in order to make them submit votes that don't match the voter's intent. This might be an even trickier problem if the votes are being anonymized by a complicated cryptographic protocols. (2) Someone might try to attack the election by interfering with the vote-collection infrastructure. This is probably easier on a public blockchain, where, for example, miners could try to prioritize blocks that don't contain information about votes, or people might try to do fork attacks specifically during the election to cause fluctuations in estimates of whether votes were included on the chain or not. Some of these things can potentially be addressed with even more cryptography, but I think the biggest insight is that just having a public ledger won't itself convince people that only registered voters were able to cast votes (and only one vote each), especially when the votes are recorded anonymously. In fact, just having a public ledger won't even interact with this challenge! (Debian has had a clever solution to some of these problems for a while, just using a digitally signed web page rather than a blockchain, but their voters -- Debian developers -- are technologically sophisticated and publicly listed in a database that all other voters can agree on.)