[wh1te_n0ise]

There are entities in existence that issue identification (SSNs, Passports, Drivers License) - why not just have them issue a hardware token once you've proven your identity to them?

If someone steals the hardware token, you could get it revoked and have a new one re-issued; just as you'd do if you lost your Passport of Drivers License.

The hardware token (as well as some form of biometric identification) could be your assurance of one-man-one-vote. The hardware token would do all of the key management needed to submit votes to the blockchain. The blockchain by itself would not be the full solution - only part of it.

[colemannugent]

Ah, now you've run into one of the many political problems surrounding voting: most states don't require a government issued ID to vote and 40% of states don't require voter ID at all.

Good luck getting anything like you suggested passed in states like California or New York.

[jstewartmobile]

Sounds more like an administrative solution with a blockchain as a 3rd wheel. If we're going full administrative, could just PGP it, and limit the franchise to nerds.

[wh1te_n0ise]

I see voting systems as multiple components. You don't necessarily need to use the government or the existing structure to issue the hardware tokens - I was just proposing that as one potential idea as logistically it seems like it'd be the easiest.

You could set up some decentralized system like the Certificate Authority system that we have for the internet perhaps to verify & issue tokens. That would be fairly difficult, however, as there would also have to be assurance that a single person has not been issued multiple tokens. There would likely require there to be a central registry somewhere.

You can't just "PGP it" in this scenario, as it needs to be one token per voter - and that has to be provable. In a "PGP"-like system - while you can receive higher assurance of identity through other people signing your public key, it provides no assurance against tokens being associated with fake identities, or people owning multiple tokens.

Regardless - identification is just one aspect of voting.

You also need some way to store the votes that have been cast (while maintaining integrity, verifiability, confidentiality) as well as a way to tally the votes (while maintaining integrity, verifiability, confidentiality). That's the component that the blockchain would serve to fill.

[jstewartmobile]

PGP and limit to nerds was a joke. Using crypto to simultaneously anonymize and identify (which is being done at least indirectly to enforce one-vote-per-person) sounds more like a contradiction than an engineering problem.

That being said, if there is a buck to be made, people will swallow all kinds mess to make it.