Secure (?) voting software

Can this kind of system work while also being secure (private & anonymous)? " - The software is organized into a "client" application, allowing individuals to submit and vote proposals, and "server" instances, automatically calculating their average preference score and updating their ranking in real-time. - Each individual has its own client app, and every community has its own server instance. - Each community's server instance of the PPP is hosted by a central server which is collectively owned by all community's members. - The central server is locked in a high-security room that can only be unlocked with the consensus of at least half the community's members. - The central server is connected to a directional antenna setup required for geolocation (see below). - The software is entirely open-source (both the client and the server) - Users are allowed to vote and/or submit any proposal about the community they belong to (but not about those they do not belong). - Aside from the aforementioned scope limitations, everyone is allowed to vote for any proposal they want regardless of any physical or psychological trait (race, age, gender, etc.). - Users are allowed to cast and/or change their votes whenever they want, and how many times they want (the previous vote is overwritten). - Each vote is expressed by a numerical value ranging from a minimum of "-1" (complete disagreement) to "+1" (complete agreement). - Each vote must be validated through a biometric identification (such as fingerprint). This is required to prevent multiple voting: in case of a match, the voter will be recognized as an old user, and the new vote will overwrite the previous one. In case of no match, the voter will be recognized as a new user, and registered into the server instance. - Location of voting/submission is automatically verified through radio geolocation techniques such as TDoA (Time Difference of Arrival) and/or AoA (Angle of Arrival). This is required in order to enforce the aforementioned scope limitation: any vote/submission for any given community will only be accepted as long as the geolocation confirms it's coming from a member of that specific community. - Both the submission and the voting processes are entirely anonymous and private: users aren't associated with any nickname and/or ID number; the software does not display any info about who submitted a proposal, nor who voted it, nor how they voted, and not even the resulting average preference score. The sole publicly available information is the resulting ordinal ranking. - Each server instance stores: a database of proposals made by members of that specific community for that specific community and, for each proposal, the votes received by each member. - All personal data (biometric and geolocation) is encrypted. - Any proposal database features by default a pre-existing fixed proposal called "Null proposal", which can be roughly interpreted as: "Nothing is to be done". - Proposals are ranked in descending order based on their average preference score; they are shown in the client instance listed from the one with the highest average score (on the top) to that with the lowest average score (on the bottom); the ranking is constantly updated in real-time according the new incoming votes. - Any proposal shall be automatically regarded as law as long as it does not contradict another one with a higher average preference score. This means that every proposal that ranks below the Null proposal shall be ignored. - Any user that does not cast a vote for over 1 year will be regarded as dead; all of his data (including his votes, but not his proposals) will be automatically deleted from the database, and he won't be counted anymore among the current citizens in the average calculations. - Any proposal whose average preference score remains below that of the Null Proposal for over 1 year will be automatically deleted from the database. " P.S.: I had to rewrite some parts in order to make it more understandable, I can't remember the exact link where I found this stuff. pic unrelated

So complicated and impossible to audit. Why not use a locked transparent box with a slit on top that you insert a paper through when voting? The box is under surveillance during the voting period and unlocked at the end to count the votes.

>>28101 and splash everyone's finger in a pot of straining dye or something too, while you're at it. Securing elections is a solved problem, its unsecure elections where advances can still be made.

>>28101 >Why not use a locked transparent box with a slit on top that you insert a paper through when voting? That requires physical presence, you can't expect everyone to physically go every time >under surveillance during the voting period >and unlocked at the end to count the votes By who? And how do you guarantee it does the job right? Also, when exactly is "at the end"? >>28102 >Securing elections is a solved problem This isn't about elections, there are no representatives here, only proposals

>Each vote is expressed by a numerical value ranging from a minimum of "-1" (complete disagreement) to "+1" (complete agreement). I don't really like that idea. A vote is usually black and white. Either you vote for, against it, or simply do not participate. What reason would a voting system need this level of granularity on scoring? Unless you want to weight certain votes, there's no real need for it. >Each vote must be validated through a biometric identification (such as fingerprint). As long as it stays on the client program, I can get behind it. One step closer to collection of biometric data, sure, but there's no worry if the data is hashed (which is stated later) and never leaves the client. Besides, the client and server would be open source, meaning open to scrutiny and audits. Doesn't stop bad actors repurposing the software privately with their own modifications if the license permits it, though. Even if it didn't... Well. let's assume good intentions, yes? There's also a question of what happens if that hashed data is collected and re-used later by some actor. no idea how feasible it would be to store in mass. >Any user that does not cast a vote for over 1 year will be regarded as dead; all of his data (including his votes, but not his proposals) will be automatically deleted from the database, and he won't be counted anymore among the current citizens in the average calculations. This is interesting. It can be a backup killswitch. Although I would extend this over several more years. Why not have a trusted authority veto if a client is dead or alive? Once veto'ed, the 1 year countdown can begin, or could be deleted within 24 hours. The dead has been confirmed so it should be safe to proceed. I would at least keep a long term version of this running in case some dead aren't reported. >Any proposal whose average preference score remains below that of the Null Proposal for over 1 year will be automatically deleted from the database. Is it necessary to apply a killswitch on a proposal? I doubt storage will be an issue with this kind of system. Maybe I'm thinking too short of a term. I think the proposal are just going to sort themselves.

>>28103 >people can't be expected to physically go to a location and perform a trivial task uhhh ok >surveilled by who ? whoever wants to, and doubtless representatives of the government or other organizations tasked with so doing. >when is the end exactly? At the time when you specify the election, you specify rules, which will include a start and end time. EZPZ. If you can't all agree on something as easy as that you can't possibly expect to hold to the results anyway.

>democracy fake and gay. doesn't even work. >muh security secure the theatre so the players can better fool you. >electronic voting fraud is easier if there's fewer humans. you won't get paper back eventually, it's too inconvenient.

post digital id infra deployed, preferably eu style with zk features, digital voting is quite simple >zk proof of id + part of electorate >second zk proof of vote + uniqueness >votes happen onchain for verifiability still, for anything important, you have coercion / buyvoting / foreign interference / retarded electorate issues so paper ballot + functioning representative democracy is way better and worth the small logistical overhead

>>28100 https://openprivacy.ca/work/swisspost-scytl-evoting