> After a certain (relatively low) point it becomes prohibitively expensive Look, vote secrecy is nothing new. Let's not have a discussion about the basic tene

> After a certain (relatively low) point it becomes prohibitively expensive Look, vote secrecy is nothing new. Let's not have a discussion about the basic tenets of voting systems unless you have a grasp of the fundamentals. I'm not saying it is an axiom of democracy that must never be breached. I'm saying if you advocate against it, the very least you must do if you want to be taken seriously is to counter the basic arguments why we have voting secrecy in the current system, and what there is to be gained and lost with an alternative system. The common vote secrecy is not to protect from large scale manipulation, although it does achieve that as well. It is to gain legitimacy by protecting against many small ones. Only then can it be argued that a vote is truly vox populi. > What the fuck does tradition have to do with it? This is about security. Please try to keep it serious. Security is not a one dimensional variable. Traditionally voting security is designed to obtain legitimacy, not protect against a corrupt voting administrator. The latter is not ignored though, it is merely achieved by other means. If your system cannot offer voting secrecy, and has no other benefits compared to a publicly auditable pen and paper system, it is overall less secure.