Why Electronic Voting Is Still A Bad Idea

Tom Scott provided an excellent explanation of why electronic voting is a terrible idea. Original: link Follow-up: ▶ this video

I think the Tom Scott video on electronic voting from years ago remains the most convincing argument to me that it's a bad idea ( ▶ this video ). To summarize, even assuming you can solve properties like correctness, censorship resistance, privacy and coercion resistance. The fundamental problem with digital is that any exploit of any of these properties you ever have scales really well. Messing with a paper election requires a lot of people working together across the entire country. A digital hack just requires one smart person

Tom Scott made an excellent summary of why electronic voting is a bad idea, and explicitly covers both open source and blockchain as proposed solutions (hint: they don't solve the problems that make e-voting bad) ▶ this video

Tom Scott still has the best argument against e-voting IMO [1]. Briefly: an election only counts if everybody can believe the results. Making an expert level understanding of CS a requirement to verify your voting system means that Joe Q. Average who doesn't hold a PhD (or maybe even a college degree) has to rely on spooky experts telling him what to believe. If I were in his shoes then I would have no confidence that I participated in a fair and valid election. We kind of live in a bubble here on HN where most people are sort of in the tech space and could take a weekend or two to understand blockchain. I think its easy to forget that most people don't have the required background to learn it easily (or would want to use up their time to understand it). I almost have a PhD in the hard sciences and I don't fully understand the finer details of block chain. I think I would have to write my own implementation to fully appreciate it. Simplicity and the ability to explain the system to every American is a requirement of any voting system. [1] ▶ this video

Please explain how a “digital election system” could ever be a sane idea? • Why Electronic Voting is a BAD Idea < link > • Why Electronic Voting Is Still A Bad Idea < ▶ this video >

Here's Tom Scott's second video explaining why electronic voting is a terrible idea: ▶ this video Electronic voting machines and companies that manufacture them should both be illegal. Yet their use is widespread in America. The primary reason they're a bad idea is they make widespread election fraud easy. There is no good faith reason to use them.

I am not familiar with Debian's practices, but electronic voting can't work for a nation because: - centralization (there must be a central, corruptible place where the voters are authenticated or the votes are counted) - software is untrustable: link The USA has had a Diebold voting scandal. Other countries are using a paper-based voting process which can be supervised by third parties. link Relevant watching: Tom Scott: Why Electronic Voting Is Still A Bad Idea ▶ this video One possible solution could be ZCash ( link ) but it has had its own problems ( link ).

Obligatory Tom Scott videos: Why Electronic Voting is a BAD Idea - Computerphile | link Why Electronic Voting Is Still A Bad Idea | ▶ this video

Relevant to HN's interests: a compelling, layperson-accessible argument against electronic voting: ▶ this video

Electronic voting is a terrible idea. Attacks on paper & pen ballot systems are much, much harder to scale. Here's Tom Scott with a great explanation of the basics. ▶ this video

Many bank transactions can be reversed, and the ones that can't can be covered by insurance or self-insurance. You can't practically speaking reverse a tainted election. Anyway, I'll let Tom Scott take it: ▶ this video

Electronic processes are way to easy to rig one way or the other.: Tom Scott: Why Electronic Voting Is Still A Bad Idea ▶ this video Sure, there are ways to cheat with paper votes too. But counting paper ballots should always be open to watch for voters interested in observing the process. And voting should be done in secret, disallowing photos, to make it hard to "prove" the vote to possible buyers.