Hacker News Reader

Comment by nixos | Hacker News Reader

It does. The article says that you can always cancel your vote later.

So vote pro-flowers in front of husband, and then change your vote on your cellphone or in the library

> It does.

I read through your parent comment and could not find any sentence for which the response "it does" makes sense. (Maybe the parent comment was edited?)

Same problem. There has to be some deadline, so if you want to ensure compliance than you wait until the last minute and watch them until expiration.

You can also vote in advance (in person), which overrides the e-vote

That just shifts the problem, and encourages pretty awful behavior like abduction.

No need for abduction, they just need to hold on to the ID to prevent revoting.

So basically like buying votes on paper? You force someone either not to vote or vote in a specific way by restricting access to their id. See, as the paper ballot trumps the electronic voting, all the attack vectors end up being about controlling the physical voting. Which is the exact problem with voting right now everywhere. Also, if you are already capable of doing this, why not take everything the person has? The digital signature is equivalent to the physical one so all non-notaried transactions you can execute exactly as voting. To my knowledge there has been exactly zero cases of forceful id extraction in the past 15 years. Basically, if you can significantly influence the voting outcome, you can significantly alter the financial wellbeing of the society. Which is, yes, a risk but would be more desirable for an attacker.

You can't buy votes on paper because you need to be alone in the voting booth. You could disable people to vote, but not force them to vote as you want.

As for the value of digital signature, I don't think it's legally equivalent to the physical signature, at least in my country. I've yet to see any administration accepting a digital signature.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com