If I summarize your comments correctly, the weak point is the vote pool manager.
I agree that the vote pool manager is an issue, but the paper and the presentation present a web-of-trust technique to build vote pools in a decentralized way.
So then there is no vote pool manager (or state, for that matter) anymore.
I considered the problems with vote pool and vote conduction separately.
The motivation to do so was that indeed in many countries the paper ballot registry permit entrance to the voting booth based on passport.
In Germany for instance, you have to show your passport in order to vote. And then two students have a list on which they strike through your name.
That could be as well done in a TLS email system but the point is: When we do things digitally, we suddenly impose far higher restrictions on security.
I understand and respect that. But, the vote pool is something that exists regardless of the voting procedure (paper, digital, mail,..).
If I summarize your comments correctly, the weak point is the vote pool manager.
I agree that the vote pool manager is an issue, but the paper and the presentation present a web-of-trust technique to build vote pools in a decentralized way. So then there is no vote pool manager (or state, for that matter) anymore.
I considered the problems with vote pool and vote conduction separately. The motivation to do so was that indeed in many countries the paper ballot registry permit entrance to the voting booth based on passport. In Germany for instance, you have to show your passport in order to vote. And then two students have a list on which they strike through your name. That could be as well done in a TLS email system but the point is: When we do things digitally, we suddenly impose far higher restrictions on security. I understand and respect that. But, the vote pool is something that exists regardless of the voting procedure (paper, digital, mail,..).