[maxerickson]

We know how to make a simple, verifiable, understandable voting system: paper ballot, maybe with an electronic counter.

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?

[heimidal]

I live in Colorado, where we recently (a few cycles ago) introduced nearly 100% mail-in voting. In my opinion, we should move the whole country to this system; participation will likely go up, lines for folks who show up on election day are manageable and there is significantly less human error when you don't have to rush it all in one day.

I agree that a blockchain solution may be overly complex, but I think the spirit of what they're after is in the right place.

[adambrenecki]

The problem with mail-in voting is voter influence. When you vote at a polling place, you're guaranteed to be able to vote in a booth on your own, without other people or party advertising to influence you. With mail-in voting there's no way to stop voters' controlling spouse and/or cult leader from influencing their vote or even voting for them.