Some things just work, like paper ballots. No reason to re-invent the wheel or to "verschlimmbessern" what works.
We vote a lot in Switzerland on a lot of issues but we do so on paper ballots which we can either drop directly in the box or send in the post. When there is a close vote the maximum wait for a result is usually around 4-5 hours so that isn't really an issue either. Counting is a highly distributed effort and IMO that also reduces the risk for large scale fraud.
It absolutely doesn't work. All paper elections have some (acceptable and accepted) level of fraud. We should move to mathematical system, that still uses paper but let's the voter confirm that thier vote was properly counted. There was a TED presentation about this many years ago.
It sounds like "3 out of 3" is too risky, as you're basically tripling the risk of losing a key (but you're reducing the risk of compromise). Something like "3 out of 4" would have been a better balance, in my opinion, but I think there were technical issues in requiring such a quorum (I think I read that the encryption scheme didn't support it, but don't quote me).
jtokoph|3 months ago
tagawa|3 months ago
glitchc|3 months ago
tomhow|3 months ago
A cryptography research body held an election and they can't decrypt the results - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46020596 - Nov 2025 (38 comments)
sschueller|3 months ago
We vote a lot in Switzerland on a lot of issues but we do so on paper ballots which we can either drop directly in the box or send in the post. When there is a close vote the maximum wait for a result is usually around 4-5 hours so that isn't really an issue either. Counting is a highly distributed effort and IMO that also reduces the risk for large scale fraud.
scotty79|3 months ago
pxeger1|3 months ago
tptacek|3 months ago
belter|3 months ago
stavros|3 months ago
glitchc|3 months ago
anonymars|3 months ago
Like fine wine
potato3732842|3 months ago
unknown|3 months ago
[deleted]
jason-richar15|3 months ago
[deleted]