An entity trying to buy votes in an election typical goes to a group of people who would not normally vote but think similarly -- such a members of a church, school or town. They pay individually or give money to the group, and often provide transportation, such as bussing to the polling place. The members feel loyalty to their group or to the payer and so they vote as directed -- mostly. This is the common method. I am not guessing. This is a long established, unfortunate, practice both in the US and other countries.

One more tool: capture a picture of the voter using the PC's camera. Helps eliminate a guy voting for his wife. (They probably vote the same, anyway.)

Yeah, voting is pretty imperfect. Do you have a better system?

Yeah, that will work. Except that those actions are highly visible. Criminals don't like getting caught (generally).

I agree with you, but want to make two comments: (1) mail is still expensive, slow, and far from perfect; (2) the US Postal Service is the largest polluter (gas fumes, junk mail) in the western world. I don't like giving them more stuff to mess up.

I'm a very tech guy and I agree with you 100%

I have a lot of background in cryptography and interent security. (This does not mean my opinion is better than yours.)

I agree that this is a hard problem and that there are many exposed 'weak links.'

But I don't think it is insolvable.

If someone were to offer $1 million to the best proposed solution, and a handful of $100,000 runner up prizes, the zillion smart people who read /. and are underemployed would come up with some great solutions.

There are some tricks that can be borrowed from current election checking. For example, look carefully at all of the user statistics -- compare to prior elections, registration stats, time of day, IP addresses, user PK certificates, comparison to other, "similar," voting domains, etc. This type of non-privacy-invading audit is good at identifying problems down to about 1% - 3% of the voting population. A hacker, trying something for the first time, has a good chance of getting located this way.

Another trick is sample audits -- a bit like "exit polls," where a fraction of voters are asked how the voted. This can be viewed as privacy invasion, but it happens all the time, now, so there is really no policy change. Again, this can find anomalies down to about 3%.

Another trick is post-election audits of PK certificates. Better late than never.

Another tool is to carefully monitor internet traffic to look for anomalies, particularly DOS attempts.

Another tool is to provide "hardened" computers that voters can use, at places smilar to today's polling locations -- senior centers, gov't offices. These machines have had some type of security audit. And yes -- this approach has its own risks, I know. I would suggest mixing this approach with user's own computers.

I know people want to use web browsers, but I would not do that. Voters have to download a totally dedicated app (see open source, below), and each app has PK signature.

Another trick is give some users hardware keys, like paypal and RSA use. Even if only 1% of voters have a hardware key this provides a very high degree of polling information and that can spot fraud down to a small fraction of a percent.

And finally, all software should be open source. Period. As pointed out repeatedly, relying on secrecy is pretty much a guarantee of breech.

I am not offering a solution here. I am merely pointing out that there are methods and tools that can be used as a starting point for a real solution.

Don't say a problem is insolvable until you have tried seriously to solve it.

And finally, no voting system is 100.000% perfect. Get over it. For example, no system prevents buying votes. No system prevents voters from lying. Build the best system you can.

The patent has been granted. It is currently in, but not out of, re-examination. However, the current progress in re-exam doesn't look favorable for the patent holder.

Just pointing out an error in the headline. A "troll" is "non-practicing entity" AKA NPE. This guy has a working web site and business built around the patent. I am just saying ...

Please give three examples. Cite specific laws, not your opinion. And, please use a Standard that has a required patent associated with it, to stay on topic.

Standards are never "owned." Except that the text is copyrighted to avoid corruption. Compliance with any Standard is strictly voluntary.

Standards are ABSOLUTELY too important for any one or two companies to control. A typical Standards committee (IEEE, ANSI, CCITT, etc) requires a minimum of 40 industry representatives and 75 to 80% positive vote from those members to pass. 100 members is more typical.

If you want Standards totally unencumbered, great! Volunteer. Most of the other people on the committee will agree with your intent.

Like or not, patents foster innovation. They have done so since the time of the Greeks, and the founding fathers built patent protection into the US Constitution.

A society that does not reward work in an investment with any way to protect the work will still be painting on cave walls.

And, by the way, Standards that people don't like, ARE ignored. Happens every day.

Very few standards are EVER legislated as compulsory.

Standards body are absolutely NOT the government. Participation is voluntary, and so is compliance.

Standards are best possible alternative to government. "If you like this, great! If don't like it, you are free to do whatever you want."

Which is, uh, why there are so MANY Standards. Or, as we used to say, "one for everybody."

People LIKE Standards. If I want to buy an "802.11ac" wireless access point, I have no clue what 802.11ac is, but I have a good chance it will work with other 802.11ac devices.

Yes, that is the normal rule. Any minimums at all are generally viewed as "not FRAND."

If Standard REQUIRES patented technology to implement, then you are right. You can't copy a patent and then think you can distribute that for free. However, first there are very few Standards that required patented technology -- although that might get you to market faster, or save you some money.

If you think can implement something close to the proposed Standard, in a way that doesn't infringe on a disclosed patent (patents are always disclosed in advance during Standards meetings), then tell the committee. They almost certainly will use your approach over a patented one. Remember it takes about 75% of the members in a Standards committee to approve a draft Standard. And for anything patented, that benefits only one member, and hurts all the rest. They are not stupid.