You could, for instance, create 1 billion private keys, and distribute them individually among 1 billion people. And then they would vote by signing their voting choices on your voting website. Of course, you don't even need Bitcoin for this scheme.
It's much more complex than that though, since you have to deal with things like
1) Private key theft
2) Private key sales (rich people buying individual votes)
3) Issuing new keys to the new voters
4) Blocking keys of the dead voters
5) Make sure your DB of everyone's private keys doesn't get stolen
6) Not issuing multiple keys to the same person
7) Making sure individual voting records don't become public, only the aggregates
And all of these organizational things are much much harder than the secure voting code.
For this to work you'd need a different network with different speeds and abilities, but then you lose the benefits of the distributed BTC network.
We can't even get all states to do an ID check before voting because of disenfranchisement concerns. I don't think a block chain idea is going to get very far.
Voting itself comes in different forms. If you mean voting for a head of state to curb election fraud I could imagine this (for now) to be done in a more traditional way.
1) You go to vote in a normal voting booth 2) In the booth you have an offline computer, allowing you to pick a candidate and create a hash on a flash drive. 3) You enter the drive into an online computer infront of the voting scrutineers and the transaction is pushed to a blockchain.
The advantage of such a system might be that you can verify that your vote was counted by keeping the public key, while on the other hand it avoids vote selling if it makes sure that you can't check again who was voted for in the transaction.
Maybe Bitcoin will fit as a template, maybe it won't. Can you take the blockchain as an idea , and start with an empty one?
There is no such thing as fair and anonymous voting, digital or otherwise. If you can't tie a person to their vote, you will never know if they sold their vote, at best you can limit the number of total votes.
Bitcoin makes it very hard to tie a physical person to a digital identity, therefore makes it very easy to sell your vote.
Commonly and incorrectly. It's like asking how to weld steel using milk and pasta -- the very question is ill-formed. Voting has very different problems than what distributed timestamping (a.k.a. blockchain) solves.
> A helpful answer would be something more than "lol read up n00b"
And I didn't specify the field the OP should read about? And on what problems? I think I did. It really takes one trivial query in Google to get a grasp, and I provided the necessary keywords.
The validating that a vote was counted appropriately probably could be used in a block chain type mechanism, but may need to be more with a zcash type of implementation.
I'm a true believer that more tech is not the right answer for voting security. (At least for the near term). Voter-verified paper ballots, that can be run through open-source tabulators and then stored for a subsequent mandatory audit would be ideal (3-5% is the target I think we've gone for in Cali).
