it isn't hard at all. authenticate, get a token, vote. if authentication fails because a token was already granted, get a human involved. track down offenders.
how is this any more of a risk than individuals entrusted to "guard" large bins of paper votes?
i certainly have. vote by mail is acceptable... so whether or not voting while not present is acceptable is not relevant... it is allowed.
so the risk is flooding of invalid votes. vote by mail limits this the physical limits of the postal service. a million invalid votes couldn't be dropped off at a single mailbox, so too a million communication signal requests could not originate from a single physical location... adding hops and delays to the network effectively mimic the limitations enforced by the postal system.
allowing me to vote in the way that i can prove is most fair for everyone in terms of vulnerability to vote tampering can most certainly not be an unsatisfiable constraint.
obviously in combination with a one time physically transferred key library, similar to the RSA 6 digit devices in use by almost everyone that cares about online transaction authentication.
how is this funny? because it's true? because it is as trivial as i claim?
are you claiming that vote tampering does not currently affect any paper based, hand-counted elections? are you claiming that online voting would certainly have more vote tampering? how? when a single person or small entrusted group can arbitrarily destroy any physical vote at their location, it's hard to argue in relative potentials.
accurately recording 300 million records, and filtering out unauthenticated communication is as easy as it gets.
do you run around in the front of gas stations screaming "if only you idiots could invent a fluid that would combust uniformly, then you could build a functioning engine, BUT YOU CAN'T BECAUSE YOU'RE ALL INCAPABLE"?
in what ways do you stand to benefit from online voting succeeding? do you work in a paper mill? perhaps you rent out the church gym to the city for elections? or do you do it for free to get the access to the "vote totes" that you "promise" not to disturb?
give all registered voters a keychain with a predictable radioactive decay element used in combination with a passphrase and unique identifier (probably social security)... call it a "voting key".
you'd rather pay diebold $2 billion and then trash what they deliver?
Slashdot Mirror
how is this any more of a risk than individuals entrusted to "guard" large bins of paper votes?
so the risk is flooding of invalid votes. vote by mail limits this the physical limits of the postal service. a million invalid votes couldn't be dropped off at a single mailbox, so too a million communication signal requests could not originate from a single physical location... adding hops and delays to the network effectively mimic the limitations enforced by the postal system.
allowing me to vote in the way that i can prove is most fair for everyone in terms of vulnerability to vote tampering can most certainly not be an unsatisfiable constraint.
you're an idiot.
do you also laugh at your smoke detectors every time you see them?
i'm convinced... you work for a paper mill.
how is this funny? because it's true? because it is as trivial as i claim?
Security from vote tampering.
are you claiming that vote tampering does not currently affect any paper based, hand-counted elections? are you claiming that online voting would certainly have more vote tampering? how? when a single person or small entrusted group can arbitrarily destroy any physical vote at their location, it's hard to argue in relative potentials.
again,
you're an idiot.
do you run around in the front of gas stations screaming "if only you idiots could invent a fluid that would combust uniformly, then you could build a functioning engine, BUT YOU CAN'T BECAUSE YOU'RE ALL INCAPABLE"?
in what ways do you stand to benefit from online voting succeeding? do you work in a paper mill? perhaps you rent out the church gym to the city for elections? or do you do it for free to get the access to the "vote totes" that you "promise" not to disturb?
you'd rather pay diebold $2 billion and then trash what they deliver?
you're an idiot.