Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
That is why you vote at a poll first and the photo is of you, the vote sheet, and your thumbprint.
The at home procedure simply verifies that you voted, not for whom.
The way it stops fraud is that fraudulent 'voters' would have to be virtual at that point which is a fail, and any hard (real) voters commiting fraud would get caught as well.
I think your problem with it is that the person's votes would be known to another?
Perhaps then the manner should be ID verification upon entry to the polling place and an electronic polling paradigm with no match between the two for third party observers.
Similar problem as with gun control. Folks think *any* oversight is too much, and a simple felony record check is all they need.
The RIGHT way to do it would get rejected by everyone as the right way to do it is to monitor a person from birth on, as in "Gattaca" styled. Fingerprints, teeth, face... all get tracked as you age. As does behavior. It would lead to ethnic and racial biases, every time, as man has a basic flaw.
That would work sans the bias, but nobody wants that either.
I had an idea 25 years ago to require that ALL cars have a police accessible addressable shutdown call in their brain boxes (that's what the car guys call them) that can be activated via radio beacon. Nobody is gonna go for that either. But look at all the car chases that would not ever happen.