3 ms·
Tampering with electronic voting can be made impossible too - by allowing people to validate their vote. This solution is often rejected because it could theor
by pydry 3y ago
Tampering with electronic voting can be made impossible too - by allowing people to validate their vote.
This solution is often rejected because it could theoretically lead to vote buying but in practice vote buying is ridiculously susceptible even to very halfhearted sting operations.
Historically it has been a problem because it was tolerated, but literally as soon as it was cracked down upon it dried up completely. It only worked when it was de facto decriminalized.
Paper is still better but IMHO I'd be happy with electronic voting with cryptographic after-election vote validation.
- CodesInChaos 3y ago> vote buying is ridiculously susceptible even to very halfhearted sting operations. But what would you do after you detect it? Go back to paper elections?
- pydry 3y agoImprison the offender. Jail time tends to focus the mind. If it's impossible to achieve on a meaningful scale without wearing an orange jumpsuit people won't try.
- CodesInChaos 3y agoWhat if it's an anonymous website that offers to pay anybody (via difficult to trace cryptocurrency) who uploads proof that they voted for a particular candidate/party?
- pydry 3y agoIf you did it on a small scale you'd probably end up like Ross Ulbricht and if you did it on a large scale you'd definitely end up like Ross Ulbricht. That something is theorerically plausible and possible on a small scale doesnt make it practical on a large scale. In an unrelated note I can't understand why anonymous crypto hasnt been banned yet. Illegal money transfers are pretty much the only practical use case. Owning bitcoin is like owning shares in the underground economy.
- kcplate 3y agoThat sounds good, but let’s face it, the threat of prison only seems to be a deterrent for people who are unlikely to intentionally commit a crime in the first place.