If we interpret "blockchain" "visibto to anyone" "transparent blockchain" charitably, TFA addresses your proposal pretty directly. (a.) Your design is likely no

If we interpret "blockchain" "visibto to anyone" "transparent blockchain" charitably, TFA addresses your proposal pretty directly. (a.) Your design is likely not receipt-free — it is thus susceptible to coercion & bribery. (b.) How does your blockchain based proposal allow the voter to achieve confidence that extraneous votes are not being cast? > because these votes will be counted electronically at some point, either by a machine Random sampling (selecting a random subset of ballots, and manually counting them, and comparing against a machine total) is a cheap way to defend against this. But also, paper ballots mean that a full recount can be done, at which point any malfeasance becomes visible. It is likely that an attacker is going to want their tracks to not be so easily discoverable, so the mere possibility of such itself is a deterrent. > or just a simple Excel sheet, They needn't be, and results can be reported to various news agencies, interested observers, representatives of candidates or parties, etc. What is the likelihood of everyone's Excel sheet being compromised? > The voting process should be designed in a way with zero trust in mind, A paper process is explainable to a normal adult of reasonable intelligence, to a degree such that trust & confidence in the paper balloting process should be establishable. Most online voting systems cannot say that. Even I as a SWE would not be able to convince myself of most electronic systems, let alone an Internet based system. Is the source even available? (This is not a given.) Is the source correct? (Underhanded code is a thing, and it is unlikely that I, myself, can audit the entire thing.) Is the binary produced actually from the same source? Can the hardware used be trusted? (You literally cannot see transistors, and even if you could, you cannot verify their function!) Blockchain systems and similar relieve some of this pressure — but not all of it. E.g., I would still have a hard time explaining the math involved to 99% of the population beyond "trust me, it works" — and the point is that that answer is unacceptable as a requirement of the problem.