[pgeorgi]

One feature of traditional voting is that everybody interested can be a volunteer and inspect _all_ aspects of the procedure. There are few requirements (some basic reading, some math which is mostly addition and division up to 10 digits in the worst case).

Once you start adding more complicated math to it, you lose this very desirable property. Once you add tech, you have a black box (what does the silicon in this computer _really_ do?)

[devdoomari]

It's much easier to cheat on traditional voting system. You can just make a pre-made box filled with fabricated votes, turn off (or pause) recording, befriend(bribe) those inspection-related personnels, etc. From what I've learnt, with methods like mix-nets, you can be probabilistically sure that a person has voted, and there are no 'false' votes

[pgeorgi]

Pre-made box filled with fabricated votes: let every volunteer (typically at least one by every party, plus a couple independents) check that boxes are empty and in order, and that nobody stuffs them over the day.

Turn off / pause recording: no idea what you even mean, there's physical presence of opposite parties throughout the entire process.

Bribe inspection-related personnel: again, volunteer driven with volunteers from all parties plus independents - it will be hard to bribe your direct competitors (and enough of them).

The higher levels where numbers are tabulated publicize all numbers (in and out), so anything that's off can be verified locally in a distributed way.

The idea is that everything happens under public scrutiny. I don't see how that could work with fun algorithms and probabilities that only some experts can understand.

The main problem is that seemingly opposing forces collude secretly, but there won't be a fix for that in the voting mechanism.