Blockchain Voting

We want voting to be easier and more secure. That’s why we’re interested in Blockchain technology to create a secure and convenient digital voting system.

 

How Blockchain Voting Could Work

Download infographic to share

 

Why Blockchain

Blockchain is being used by banks and the financial services industry to move money and get people paid, quickly, efficiently, safely and securely.  We think voting in Australia should be just that:  quick, efficient, safe and secure.  If Blockchain works for money, it can work for votes.

When you go to vote, you want to be sure that no one else can vote in your name and no one else can vote more than once in an election. Blockchain can help make Australian elections more reliable, fair, safe and secure.  It’s all in the architecture and how it works.

 

So, what is Blockchain?

Blockchain experts use the example that Blockchain behaves like a financial ledger.  In financial ledgers, information from different financial accounts must balance before the ledger can be considered correct.  That’s the idea behind Blockchain voting:  votes from different polling places around the state or around the country must balance with the number of actual enrolled voters and the places where they are registered to vote. 

With an old-school central database like we have today, a hacker acting alone or for an organisation or foreign government can manipulate results almost undetected even while results are being counted. 

With Blockchain, hacking is much more difficult and virtually impossible.  That’s because Blockchain has instant checks and balances that a central database cannot offer.  Basically, everyone involved in the election, including political parties and their candidates, can watch and see in real-time what is happening as votes are delivered and counted.  This can help make voting checking must faster and more reliable.  If the numbers don’t add up, then everyone knows and checks can be done to solve the problem.

In an ideal world, votes are counted quickly, fairly and honestly and we can get results within minutes instead of hours, days, weeks and sometimes months.

 

 

 

So, what does it mean for you?

Blockchain means easy, safe and secure voting using your mobile phone, computer or any digital device connected to the Internet.  No more long lines waiting to vote.  Quick and easy convenient – and fair!

It’s time we used technology to bring back public trust in elections and election results across Australia.

If you think your right to choose your government is important, get behind our campaign for a better, fairer, more trustworthy election-day system.  Tell your local parliamentarian to get behind Blockchain for a stronger, fairer Australian democracy.


JOIN THE FIGHT

Add your name and let’s keep Australian elections free and fair.

  • donated 2023-05-19 19:20:45 +1000

  • commented on A fair voting system 2023-04-30 16:55:07 +1000
    A summary/update of my earlier comments.
    Only, repeat ONLY, Borda-style counts guarantee fair counting of preferential voting elections for single or multimember electorates. Historically, Borda counts have been rejected (18 to 20th century, e.g. “Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem”) because they will contradict an “Absolute Majority” – but that’s only when the voters make it clear that the “absolute” majority is weak AND that preferences prove that there is a MORE-preferred candidate.

    E.g., If Candidate A gets 51% of first preferences and 49% of last preferences, but Candidate D (of 4 candidates) gets 0% 1st preferences but 100% of 2nd preferences (extremely unlikely but this is s reductio-ad-absurdum proof) hence Candidate D is clearly the preferred candidate with an average preference of 2.000 which is much closer to average 1st preferences than A’s average of 2.470. Another way of expressing that is is that A is only 51.000% of the way to winning unanimously, whereas D is (1-(2.000-1)/(4-1)) = 66.667% of the way towards unanimous 1st preferences – (two steps out of 3 steps from last of 4th to 2nd out of 4). That’s my DCAP count where DCAP=100x(1-(PrefAv-1)/(Candidates-1). The Borda count applicable is Borda=DCAPx(Candidates-1)xVoters = 153 for A for 100 voters, and 200 for D in the above example.

    DCAP easily accepts Partial Preferential Votes and SPLIT Partial Preferential Votes (e.g., if there are 9 candidates and a voter votes 1st 2nd & 3rd preferences and 8th & 9th preferences then DCAP “normalises” that vote by filling the 4 empty preference boxes with the average (5.5) of the 4 missing numbers (4, 5, 6 & 7). Further DCAP can often correct voters errors such as omitting a number of duplicating a number, provided that the voter’s intention is logically clear. “Normalising” ensures that every vote carries exactly the same weight as every other vote.

    DCAP is the “Candidate” version count for single-member electorates, whereas DPAP is the “Party” version which allows for fair proportional representation on a Party basis in multi-member electorates.

  • commented on Compulsory voting 2023-04-30 16:06:02 +1000
    I plead ignorance re block-chain techniques. But yes we need robust voter ID. My main concern is as I’ve expressed in the “A Fair Voting System”. This section is about Compulsory Voting which I strongly endorse as a Responsibility to earn our Rights.

  • commented on Compulsory voting 2023-04-30 14:37:12 +1000
    Which consensus do you guys suggest? PoW? PoET?