3 ms·

Also check Microsoft research U-Prove (http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/u-prove/ http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/u-prove/) or IBM Ident

Also check Microsoft research U-Prove (http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/u-prove/ http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/u-prove/) or IBM Identity Mixer (http://www.zurich.ibm.com/security/idemix/ http://www.zurich.ibm.com/security/idemix/), both are Identity systems that allow casting electronic votes anonymously. I wonder if we will ever get to a point where that kind of crypto is explained enough that we collectively trust it as much as pen and paper.

ddingus 12y ago
There still exists a forced trust by the voter in that they must trust the machine to parse their voter intent and must trust it to use that intent to contribute to the overall tally. A machine presents a user with some interface, and they make a selection and they get told something. They have no identifiable way to see the record of their intent is accurate, or even will be used. With pen and paper, the intent of the voter is what we record and that record is used to arrive at the tally to determine the election. With a machine, we do not record the voter intent, only what a machine determined that intent to be. Actually recording the voter intent means being able to evaluate that intent in a court of law, vote by vote, if needed. Given the impact law and government has on us, it's not too much to ask we actually do record intent.