discuss Digital voting and its risks.

[Unvarnished]

Of course, there are risk in electronic voting. The fast pace of technological development enables people to use digital voting systems.

The question remains whether adopting this approach would benefit us. Our existing online data vulnerability can give room for hackers to manipulate votes.

 

[Ashake]

I believe that properly implemented digital voting systems will provide the needed security. With this, our votes receive protection through both encryption from beginning to end. The adoption of digital voting methods will lead to enhancements of accessibility and increased voter turnouts.

 

[Harsh World]

There would be no way to hack the vote if it were done on the blockchain. The only way that it could be hacked is with a 51% attack, but it would be hard to accomplish if, later discussed, wallets (a Voter ID with a chip) were destroyed on death or invalidated (where necessary) if they become a felon and unable to cast a vote in certain elections.

A wallet, and your passphrase, would be essentially private. The only way you could cast a vote would be with your "wallet" (or chipped card/Common Access Card), and you could only ever change (if done on time) or cast a vote with the physical card. Issuing cards could improve voter turnout because you could cast your vote from home at any time, not relying on polling station hours, if you also bought a $10 Common Access Card reader, or cast it from a friend's or neighbor's house who had one. Though, polling stations would still be operable, but you would have bring your Voter ID to cast a vote.

There would have to be a system in place so that two or more Voter ID cards couldn't be issued to the same person, a system that destroyed the wallet on death (or invalidated it if they become a felon and unable to vote), and a system that would reject a Voter ID card if it was reported as lost or stolen, with obviously a new one issued to vote again.

I don't know enough about the blockchain to where you could privatize your vote, as nobody should be able to see that, or even if you voted at all. That information should only be visible to you through the voting portal and who you voted for if ever accessed. The only information that should be public is the number of "wallets" that placed a vote for which candidate to tally the votes within seconds to determine the winner on the spot/after polls close.

 

[1stop]

Open-source voting systems serve as the most suitable choice because they offer transparency. Through such measures we can verify that votes are counted correctly and securely. There are lots of benefit from this technology because it's less expensive.

 

[Yama]

Digital voting is not implemented entirely in my home country and it is available only in selected constituencies. I have never used digital voting machines. I don't worry about the data loss through digital voting what I worry is the data loss related to my banking accounts and national ID card.

 

[Heatman]

There would be no way to hack the vote if it were done on the blockchain. The only way that it could be hacked is with a 51% attack, but it would be hard to accomplish if, later discussed, wallets (a Voter ID with a chip) were destroyed on death or invalidated (where necessary) if they become a felon and unable to cast a vote in certain elections.

A wallet, and your passphrase, would be essentially private. The only way you could cast a vote would be with your "wallet" (or chipped card/Common Access Card), and you could only ever change (if done on time) or cast a vote with the physical card. Issuing cards could improve voter turnout because you could cast your vote from home at any time, not relying on polling station hours, if you also bought a $10 Common Access Card reader, or cast it from a friend's or neighbor's house who had one. Though, polling stations would still be operable, but you would have bring your Voter ID to cast a vote.

There would have to be a system in place so that two or more Voter ID cards couldn't be issued to the same person, a system that destroyed the wallet on death (or invalidated it if they become a felon and unable to vote), and a system that would reject a Voter ID card if it was reported as lost or stolen, with obviously a new one issued to vote again.

I don't know enough about the blockchain to where you could privatize your vote, as nobody should be able to see that, or even if you voted at all. That information should only be visible to you through the voting portal and who you voted for if ever accessed. The only information that should be public is the number of "wallets" that placed a vote for which candidate to tally the votes within seconds to determine the winner on the spot/after polls close.

Nothing is hack-proof 100% as far as I know. Ethereum is on the blockchain technology but it have been hacked 5 times to the best of my knowledge. The latest one was 21st February 2025 where approximately $1.4 billion in Ethereum was stolen.

But still, I will prefer to have voting carried out online with such technology because that kind of hack isn't something that can be pulled off easily.

 

[Alamson]

Digital or evoting makes voting and result delivery faster. The kind of encryption used makes hacking and tampering impossible. This is similar to the security used by large banks. The only way it can be compromised is when insiders are involved. I could remember the US accused Russia of interfering with its election in 2016; it wasn’t about hacking the system but a campaign of spreading false information.

 

[Ja sa bong]

If it's possible to vote digitally, I'm all in support of it because it's going to save me the stress of going out to vote. If we can do all of our banking stuffs online with all the world's money being held in liquid form online, why can't voting online be made possible? They should have done it so by now.