> about half of the members are 60 years old with little (and lessening as they get older) tech facility. That right there will create significant 'befuddlemen

> about half of the members are 60 years old with little (and lessening as they get older) tech facility. That right there will create significant 'befuddlement' for any attempt at 'electronic voting'. > Can “ensuring” only people who are assoc members happen in a way manageable by non-tech people? Simply put: no. Consider that all methods of "authentication" of a human at a remote computer involve the computers verifying that "the human typing" can provide some "secret answer". [1] But "knowing secret answer" only verifies that "the human typing" is the actual authorized human when no one "shares secret answers" with anyone. I.e., all the correct secret answer verifies is "some unknown human responded with the correct response". If there is no "secret sharing" then "provided correct response" reasonably assures that the "unknown human" is the actual authorized one. If secrets are shared, then "provided correct response" does not guarantee that only "the correct human" is typing. > tell assoc members not to share their password. While this might prevent a potential "malpractice" lawsuit by having given notice "not to do" something, it does not, in fact, prevent any members from sharing their passwords with anyone. Someone who plans to be on a ship in the south-pacific doing ocean temperature research, out of contact range with the world, during the time of the vote can still "share their password" with their wife/husband/brother/cousin/etc. if they also really want their vote put it (they, of course, also have to trust that their 'proxy' actually votes the way they want). Simply telling a group of people "not to share" their passwords in no way guarantees that all of the group will abide by the request. [1] do not take 'typing' and 'secret answer' literally, read them broadly as "some user providing a response" in whatever way necessary.