[Chinmayh]

I am not sure why Software should not be used. My solution would be

1. Open Source software, which can be verified by everyone.

2. Voting via an app with authentication as good as or through your bank account.

3. After Voting, We should be able to query and verify who our vote is with - on a particular day of counting, and get whole history of our votes. An individual persons vote is append only.

Please, do let me know drawbacks.

[Scarblac]

You still need a way to verify that the code used everywhere in the system from receiving your ballot to announcing the final vote tally was the exactly correct version of the open source software.

Querying and verifying your vote doesn't guarantee that it was included like that in the count, just that your real vote is stored somewhere.

[endisukaj]

> Open Source software, which can be verified by everyone.

What makes you think that the open source software you verified is the software actually loaded on the machine you are using to vote. What about the software on the machine that counts the votes?

> Voting via an app with authentication as good as or through your bank account.

What about voter secrecy? Logging in and then voting defeats the purpose of voting.

> After Voting, We should be able to query and verify who our vote is with - on a particular day of counting, and get whole history of our votes. An individual persons vote is append only.

If you can query to find your vote then anyone else can. Do you want everyone to know who you voted for?

[Chinmayh]

Why do you think that paper ballots cannot be faked? Why do you think counting paper votes is better?

You can't force people to declare their vote, If they don't want to. If the country is totally lawless, then I don't think voting will change it anyway.

Just because we can query some info about ourselves, doesn't mean anyone else can. That is clear malicious intent.

[dragonwriter]

> Why do you think that paper ballots cannot be faked? Why do you think counting paper votes is better?

Faking paper ballots is easy; getting any substantial number of fake paper ballots into the count in a system with the kind of controls associated with paper ballots virgin hg in the US, OTOH, is not.

> Just because we can query some info about ourselves, doesn't mean anyone else can.

Yes, it does. That is, it means that the information is permanently more to your identity. It means it's subject to vote buying/retaliation, because people can choose you into proving your vote and can reward or punish you for it.

> That is clear malicious intent.

That doesn't mean it can't be done.

[jimrandomh]

You can't have the ability to verify who you voted for, because that would eliminate the secret ballot.

[Chinmayh]

By that logic, you are saying that everything in my bank account is public information.

If there is an incentive to get to know who a individual person has voted for, then it would be with all parties.

And if you think there is just one party that is much stronger as compared to others. Then, it doesn't matter if you vote or not. They are just being nice by letting you vote.

[mcintyre1994]

Your bank statement is available to somebody who's threatening you, because it's available to you. That's the problem with being able to verify your own vote, somebody else can force you to show them who you voted for, so they can threaten you to make you vote for who they want. It's the same reason you can't take a photo of your ballot.

[endisukaj]

> If there is an incentive to get to know who a individual person has voted for, then it would be with all parties.

Buying votes is a thing. If it's easy to verify that you voted for X party then it's very easy to sell your vote.

[mathnmusic]

And if selling vote becomes possible, it's also possible to be forced to "sell" it for an unfair price.

[ajurna]

please watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI it has a good list of reasons why software voting is a terrible idea.

also the secret ballet is very important to maintaining the fairness of elections.