4 ms·
Having thought about this a bit, I don't see how you do electronic voting without giving the voter a receipt that contains a sequence number, timestamp, and cur
by DanielBMarkham 15y ago
Having thought about this a bit, I don't see how you do electronic voting without giving the voter a receipt that contains a sequence number, timestamp, and current status of the machine. All encrypted, of course. That way the paper trail can be reassembled if necessary to see if it matches the end state. Hope that was explanatory enough. It also partially distributes oversight authority to all the voters instead of having it all at the poll.
- InclinedPlane 15y agoThere's no point in maintaining a distributed paper trail, since actually making use of it would violate anonymity and be a gigantic hassle, you might as well just keep the paper trail centralized. And if you're doing that then you might as well just go back to electronically scanned paper ballots.
- ugh 15y agoSecret electronic voting is just too much hassle. Manual counting really isn't that big of a deal, at least with current election systems.
- binbasti 15y agoFor elections to be considered democratic, they must not only be fair and anonymous, but also comprehensible to all. As any electronic voting system (even an insecure one) is only comprehensible to some, electronic voting is by definition not democratic and should therefore be forbidden in any country that claims itself to be that. Actually, in Germany the highest court declared electronic voting to be unconstitutional on the grounds of deficient comprehensibility in 2009. Maybe we can use this argument in other countries, too.