4 ms·

At some point, a decision has to be reached, right? You can't just decide ten years later that you changed your mind on some election issue expect to take your

At some point, a decision has to be reached, right? You can't just decide ten years later that you changed your mind on some election issue expect to take your vote back. So if you're an evil person looking to pressure people to vote your way, you would make people prove their vote to you after it's too late to change it. Or, if it's not possible to verify the vote later (I believe it is possible in the estonian system), you'd make them vote at the last minute. Am I misunderstanding something here? I don't see how this issue has been solved.

atirip 12y ago
Yes, there is a method to verify your vote. But as i said, e-voting is in advance only. On the voting day only traditional voting is possible, traditional vote voids e-vote. E-vote can be changed only when e-voting is active, not later. And yes, one could prevent someone to go and vote traditionally, but this is out of the scope of e-voting. There are myriad of methods how to manipulate traditional voting. And your hypothetical case is really a kidnapping, criminal offence, not scalable.
- throwaway7767 12y ago
  That's a reasonable approach, though of course it means that you can never have a 100% e-voting system as the security of the thing is contingent on there being a regular paper ballot. > And your hypothetical case is really a kidnapping, criminal offence, not scalable. No, there is no need for kidnapping. Human relationships are complicated and pressure can be applied in many ways. A spouse, father, or other person can influence people in his direct vicinity. The secret ballot and requirment that only one person enters the voting booth at a time ensures that that influence does not extend to the election result.