Descrived about the challenges to free and fair
Answers
SECRECY OF THE VOTE. The ballot must be anonymous to make it impossible to trace back the voter. This includes secret marks left by voter on the ballot, handwriting, special combinations of multiple-choice answers etc. Secret voting prevents coercion (e.g., by family members, boss) and vote-purchase (by autocratic political entities). Moreover, it should be impossible for the voter to show or prove how (s)he voted (no pictures of the ballot, no receipt, no web account history, no IP log in the server). Needless to say, voting via the internet is off the table, as well as voting not at the voting station or voting together with anyone who can see your choice. AUTHENTICITY. The ballot is personal and non-transferable. It should not be possible to take your ballot outside the voting station and give it to some one else, especially if that person is not eligible to vote. If a voter does not have an opinion, it is better not to vote. Nor should it be possible to steal someone’s identity and voter’s right (voter fraud). REPRESENTABILITY. Not everyone is allowed to vote. However, those who are eligible to vote should have equal probability of casting their vote (no voter suppression). In practice that means that there must be a large number of voting stations, also that election is carried out during a wide-enough time window (multiple days) which also spans weekend. Information dissemination about the election should also give equal opportunity for participants to come. VERIFIABILITY. The results of vote counting should be transparent, redundant (multiple counters), unbiased (apolitical counters or counters from all the parties) and reproducible (ballots must be saved). Electronic voting fails this test because of transparency. Moreover, the voter should be able to know with absolute certainty whether his vote (whatever the choice was) was actually counted. This is very hard to achieve. Rules 1,2,3 ensure an unbiased result, i.e., that by polling 1 mln. eligible opinions we actually get 1 mln. of eligible independent opinions. This is the most basic assumption behind any statistical procedure (e.g., estimating the mean or the totals). Rule 4 (as well as rules 1,2,3) has to do with the the trust in electoral process, without which all this endeavour is pointless. Note 1: the voting right is not universal. Underaged, senile, demented, imprisoned members of society are often not allowed to vote (as well as non-citizens). A more controversial restriction is a regular requirement for a minimal understanding of the topic in question (e.g., “is this a presidential or parliamentary election?”). A less controversial restriction is the requirement that ballot would be filled according to the rules (e.g., not to violate secrecy). Note 2: the idea of “one voter = one vote” is not imperative. Similarly to voters who choose not to vote (because they have no strong opinion), there can be a self-imposed weight to each vote. Futuristic example: each voter has 10 votes for 10 electoral events and choses how to allocate them based on a personal-stake in each individual election question. Such a procedure would create a weight gradient (“how strong is my opinion on this choice?”).