<div class='by' style='font-style: italic;'>by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )</div>
<div class='comment_content'><p></p><p>> To say blockchain is inherently unsafe is like saying software is inherently unsafe</p><p>Oh, you are so close to a breakthrough.</p><p>When it comes to voting, blockchain, like software, IS inherently unsafe. If the main goal for voting security is maintaining the people's confidence in an election, the only system that will meet that standard is a system where people are actually keeping an eye on one another. And I mean physically watching one another. And that's the system we had in place before the advent of voting machines and election software. You had a room full of election judges from both sides, and they sat side-by-side checking in voters as they approached the voting booth and physically watched them put the ballot in the box. When the votes were counted, there was a whole bunch of people from both parties standing around keeping a close eye. When the ballots were sent for storage, one person from each party rode in the truck to drop them off after sealing the container - together - and signing off.</p><p>It was trust, but verify. Was it possible to jigger with an election like that? Of course. But you had a list of names of people you could hold accountable at every step in the process. Electronic voting will never, ever be trusted. That is the effect of transparency.</p></div>
<div class='comment' style='display: block; margin-left: 80px'>
<div class='by' style='font-style: italic;'>by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )</div>
<div class='comment_content'><p></p><p>> To say blockchain is inherently unsafe is like saying software is inherently unsafe</p><p>Oh, you are so close to a breakthrough.</p><p>When it comes to voting, blockchain, like software, IS inherently unsafe. If the main goal for voting security is maintaining the people's confidence in an election, the only system that will meet that standard is a system where people are actually keeping an eye on one another. And I mean physically watching one another. And that's the system we had in place before the advent of voting machines and election software. You had a room full of election judges from both sides, and they sat side-by-side checking in voters as they approached the voting booth and physically watched them put the ballot in the box. When the votes were counted, there was a whole bunch of people from both parties standing around keeping a close eye. When the ballots were sent for storage, one person from each party rode in the truck to drop them off after sealing the container - together - and signing off.</p><p>It was trust, but verify. Was it possible to jigger with an election like that? Of course. But you had a list of names of people you could hold accountable at every step in the process. Electronic voting will never, ever be trusted. That is the effect of transparency.</p></div>
<div class='comment' style='display: block; margin-left: 80px'>