Pardon my use of AI (Perplexity) in formulating this response.
Blockchain does not dispel concerns that online voting is inherently insecure; security experts conclude it fails to solve the fundamental problems and can even make them worse.
Why blockchain doesn't fix online voting security
End-to-end security: Blockchain secures the ledger, but not the voter's device. If malware alters your vote before it's submitted (e.g., changes R→D), the blockchain records the tampered vote correctly
Undetectable fraud: Attacks can silently modify or discard votes at the device/network level, making fraud virtually undetectable and uncorrectable after the election
Voter identity/authentication: Blockchain doesn't solve secure identity verification; bad ID photos and weak authentication remain vulnerable
Voter privacy/coercion: Blockchain's transparency can enable vote-buying: software can mathematically prove which candidate you voted for, undermining the secret ballot
Denial-of-service: Networks remain vulnerable to DoS attacks that could block eligible voters
Vendor opacity: Many blockchain voting vendors (like West Virginia's) keep cryptographic protocols secret, preventing independent security audits
Expert consensus
- MIT researchers: Blockchain voting would greatly increase the risk of undetectable, nation-scale election failures
- US Vote Foundation: Blockchain voting is an "imminent threat to democracy" and no more secure than regular web-based voting
- The Conversation: Blockchains won't fix internet voting security and could make it worse
- Scientific American: Blockchains are probably not the answer for secure elections
The bottom line: blockchain addresses ledger integrity but cannot secure the voter's device, network, or identity—the actual weak points that make online voting inherently insecure.
Any digital processing of votes leaves us open to software manipulation of votes. There is absolutely no way to stop a bad actor from changing the outcome of an election if they gain access to the code in a digital counting system, and no way to prove it was done after if they cover their tracks right.
Indelible purple dye on the finger after voting (in person only, obviously) to prevent people from voting more than once is a good idea, but then you have to ensure the person checking the fingers, the person supplying the ink, and the person applying the ink are not corrupt.
What's the bridge analogy?
Scammers are always impersonating popular accounts and getting into people's DMs. I can't say with certainty that's what happened but statistically, the odds are extremely high both instances were the work of scammer impersonators. It's super easy to copy the photo of a trusted account, create an account with one character slightly different and start messaging followers of the trusted account with bots.
It's private, not government. Why would the government advertise its biggest embarrassment? Some here think it is run by insiders connected to the Q operation, but I've seen no convincing evidence of it being anything other than a patriot who is fed up with the FED and the out-of-control spending.
The most surprising thing about this post is that it's a mainstream media outlet exposing this longtime problem. At first, I thought, oh good, they've grown some bona fide balls, but then I thought, no, maybe there's an agenda behind this. They're going to use this to justify more Orwellian BS against everyone in the airport.
As a Canadian, when I drive across the border, the only thing they ever ask me is my citizenship, where I'd been, and whether I'm bringing in taxable goods. They don't care about drugs or illegal guns getting in, just tax money.
For those who are about to mod, we salute you! o7