|
|
|
|
|
by infogulch
3507 days ago
|
|
Perhaps this could be combined with a zero-knowledge proof? From wikipedia[1] with context: zero-knowledge protocol is a method by which one party (the voting machine) can prove to another party (the voter) that a given statement is true (their ballot was cast, untampered), without conveying any information apart from the fact that the statement is indeed true. ... the definition implies that the voter will not be able to prove the statement in turn to anyone else (a vote buyer/intimidator), since the voter does not possess the secret information. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof |
|
You can explain in about 30 seconds that the ballots shouldn't be individually identifiable, you have a record that is difficult to tamper with, etc.
How many people have a rigorous understanding of Zero Knowledge proofs? How many people would be able to audit the implementation of such a system?
The benefits that come from electronic voting are small, and we can get them in other ways. Why are people so eager to add so much complexity to such an important civic function?