Internet money needs to be the opposite, and reversible through the courts.
Internet money needs to be the opposite, and reversible through the courts.
Why? Honestly Internet voting would improve overall turnout, which seems more important. And we probably could accomplish anonymity with some clever cryptography.
That is why you typically show id, get a ballot and there is no relationship between the two.
And we could use cryptography to vote anonymously after authentication online.
You go into the voting booth alone.
If someone is willing to sell their vote in the first place, they have zero incentive to vote for another candidate. They only have to trust the buyer to follow up on his promise (which is required in any other scenario also).
It is an unsolvable problem for mail in voting, which is why it should be prohibited in most cases.
Double envelope systems, observable counting systems and standardized ballots that can checked for non uniqueness before voting are how they do it.
People have thought hard about this, and it has worked fine for may states for decades now.
Or, you could have a central, federally run organization that takes responsibility for delivering sealed ballots to the respective states in a timely manner. Which is what we call voting by mail.
No, postal voting is not the same as bringing ballot boxes to voters in exceptional circumstances and does not have the same set of tradeoffs. Postal voting in particular certainly does not solve the voter manipulation problem.
The fact that so many other countries manage to actually provide ballot boxes to all voters, even to voters in much more remote scenarios than US military service and countries with far fewer resources means that the US has no excuses.
One local scammer made off with a $5m government refund for a fraudulent business tax filing. You can't make this stuff up if you tried...
At some point, one is just amazed at the size of the cons people pull online. =3