yes, it can. it involves a partial re-encryption, verification codes, zero knowledge proofs, a mixnet and a bunch other funny stuff. it can be verified individually by the voter, and the counting process is also auditable, verifiable, and anonymous. you'll find complete specifications on the norwegian election site.

that's another issue. i might even agree, but norwegian (and most countries') law strongly enforces privacy. privacy is precisely the hardest nut to crack.

great power comes with great responsibility. i guess we'll get there when we're ready.

the system is not opaque at all, it's fully transparent. unfortunately, it's also complex. it's verifiable by anyone with understanding of the math and the data manipulation involved. that's far from a majority but still quite a few, and it would take only one of them pointing out a flaw to invalidate the process.

a large majority of the population can't verify the whole process on paper either, there is also trust necessary in that due process is followed and collectively monitored correctly. this doesn't rule out fraud completely, but makes massive fraud very difficult.

i can't. but the voter can invalidate that vote many times, from anywhere, secretly, and ultimately he can vote on paper too if need be.

sorry, i'm really far fom angry, just baffled. who told you that? this was the first time (not really, we're actually talking about the second run of the same experiment, the first was in 2011, but on a smaller scale) that full evoting over the wild wild web was attempted on binding elections ever, with privacy, anonymity and verifiability. the real test was if this was at all possible and practical with present technology. i turns out it is. it's complex, it has issues, there's a lot of room for improvement but it works, it can be carried out and verified. participation was just another measure amongst many others ... i dunno, it may have been trumpeted in some official statement but your common sense alone should have sufficed for you to realize that even if that were the primary objective, results of a single pilot test between different types of elections in different contexts and different population sizes and with years of difference would have been far from conclusive if not merely anecdotical in all but very extreme scenarios.

the aim of this experiment was to see if this difficult and heavily debated stunt is at all feasible, and how it works out. it was possible because some guys just thought it was worth to try, and because some other guys thought they could handle it. many conclusions in lots of areas can be drawn from it, and more experiments will be necessary. just looking at participation comparing to some other random election is not only simplistic but makes no sense.

the difference now (that the system has proved feasible) is that current guys just don't find it interesting, necessary or worth the effort. that's just ok, but the talk about turnout is definitely just an excuse.

oh please, i don't merit this. i wasn't at all angry, just calling out bullshit. nothing personal.

you are wrong or lying. there was a "virtual" voting machine implementation. it was not used, like a bunch of other funny stuff, but it always was an option, that's the reason it was fucking implemented in the first place. you can look it up in the sourcecode since it is public. who the fuck are you anyway spilling all this bullshit?

paper voters have no way of verifying that either, you are simply talking nonsense.

by the way increased turnout is not at all the benefit, you not only do know nothing about the system, you fail to grasp what democracy is about. if turnout is a matter of comfort or marketing, democracy is worth a crap.

the central aspect about evoting is that it can drastically improve the technical capacity of governments to submit stuff for question. turnout is a totally different issue which should depend on the quality of citicenship, not on user experience in some process. you promptly bought the politician's simplistic explanations = you have no clue -> stop talking nonsense.

this could be it. i was involved in this experiment as a developer. i'd say that besides some specific flaws the experiment was a success. i do now know for sure and first hand that secure, private and verifiable evoting over inet is feasible, because we did it, never mind any particular quirks. i have to say i was never really sure, now i am. is it a priority? probably not. it is definitely an improvement and a good tool but for me there are many other issues that would need to be tackled first if democracy is to be taken seriously, voting electronically or on paper being just secondary. i can't help but also applaud the iniciative of those norse politicians who made this experiment possible, however i'm absolutely not confident in that opting out now accounts for minding that very same priorities.

i thought you'd came up with some conclussive scientific study showing irrefutable evidence that black humans are more prone to violent behaviour than white.

instead you're just babbling about crime statistics around the ghettos in your little corner of the world were you happened to threw some blacks in a while back. so now you have a problem with them? don't tell ...

i guess with such a display of skewed naiveness there's no point in even bothering to talk about civilization. have a nice day, keep enjoying your "commonly accepted definitions", you racist scumbag :-)

saying those things can only offend yourself because in absence of a clear definition of "violence" and "civilization" in context it just exposes you as ignorant and racist (what a coincidence!).

me. actually government is just a proxy for enlarging the pie of a few. it's just a coverup for private tyrants.

"we the people" should oppose this, uphold our rights etc. we don't because we are mostly dumb and lazy, but anyway if we tried hard enough to be taken seriously they would simply kill enough of us to keep the rest in line.

me too and i'm not even in there. but plenty fuckwitts who have my email are.

alienware can do as they please. all i'm saying is that i will not buy any m$-infested hardware.

my point being (sorry for repeating myself but i guess it wasn't clear to everybody) that if we all abstained from buying dishonest crap, better alternatives would naturally get a boost. i.e, as weird as it sounds, you can effectively stop crap from invading everything by simply not buying it. :-)

in all modesty, i do, i've been doing it for years and i'm perfectly fine with what i get. needless to say, i like games a lot, but not at any cost. of course not at the cost of being stick-carroted around by corporations. that just isn't fair game.

if more people did the same we would all benefit from better technology and entertainment. yes, you can! start now! :-)

wondering what those two circa 5-billion/year spikes mean in the "maximum effective effort" curve. that's about doubling the budget of "accelerated" just for 3 years hurry.