@SuperDicq >Have you ever considered a voting system based on blockchain?
Blockchain is only useful in the cases of PoW currencies - in all other cases it's a meme.

>Like in the simplest sense everyone citizen gets one VoteCoin and transfers it to who they vote for, whoever has the most VoteCoins wins the election.
There are many, many attacks against such cryptocurrency that will cause a miscount.

One example would be a 51% attack, where someone goes and mines only blocks containing the votes containing their preferred candidate(s) and doesn't put votes for unwanted candidates in each block, meaning few or none of such votes get counted.

I don't see a reliable method to allocate every citizen only one "VoteCoin" without at least identifying them - but such identification will allow looking up who someone voted for.


A non-blockchain voting scheme utilizing ring signatures and zero knowledge proofs would allow for confidential hosting probably, but then there's the issue of ensuring that people can only vote once.


One offered solution is a voting machine, that does all these things, but the problem with that is even if the machine is perfectly secure and hasn't been cracked (unlikely due to the proprietary software the machines run), many voters tend to leave after voting and typically there's a timeout screen that gives you a chance to correct a mistaken vote (and of course it's not impossible for someone to go "clean the touchscreen", while also changing the vote).

Even if the voting scheme is perfectly secure, the will be the problem of how there's an extremely high chance of proprietary software that controls the vote entering changing the entered vote.


A paper ballot is quite hard to surpass security and anonymity wise, as all the ballots are the same and go into a locked box that is physically watched and the counting process can be supervised too.