@jeroen @mattblaze In general voting by going to a specific place inside the town where you live is cumbersome. If we can get a good system to mostly get rid of that that will likely increase voting turnout. Having elections with 40% turnup is much more dangerous to #democracy than it security risks, of course unless these lasts once are huge (which is possible)

@HcInfosec @jeroen Yes, and every technical expert who has seriously studied online voting as come to the same conclusion about the risks, because there are fundamental problems and requirements that preclude building an Internet voting system sufficient for civil elections.

It's not that scientists don't think Internet voting would be nice. Just as physicists don't think perpetual motion machines wouldn't be terrific. It's just that they understand fundamental reasons we can't make them.

@HcInfosec @jeroen You want an Internet voting system? You have two choices. One is to relax some of the basic requirements and civil rights associated with voting (at least in the US), such as the secret ballot. The other option is to have elections where we can never be sure who actually won, and that are vulnerable to disruption by anyone connected to the Internet.

Neither option seems great.

@HcInfosec @jeroen And these are because of FUNDAMENTAL properties of software-based systems and the requirements of voting, These are not things we can engineer our way out of with better technology or by working harder. We'd have to either change the requirements for democratic elections or accept potentially unbounded uncertainty in election outcomes, no matter what technical advances happen.
@mattblaze @HcInfosec @jeroen So what, exactly, is fundamentally wrong with, say, the Estonian voting system?
🤔
#Estonia #voting #elections