Mobile Voting: A Multimillion-Dollar Plan to Revolutionize the Democratic Process
In a bid to increase voter turnout and revitalize democracy, a wealthy client has approached security expert Joe Kiniry with an unusual offer. The proposal is to fund a voting system that would allow citizens to cast their ballots via mobile phones. After some hesitation, Kiniry agreed to collaborate on the project, which he initially saw as a valuable research endeavor.
Today, Bradley Tusk, a New York City political consultant and fixer for companies like Uber, is launching his Mobile Voting Foundation's cryptography-based protocol, VoteSecure. This open-source technology aims to facilitate secure mobile voting using iPhones and Android devices. Two prominent election technology vendors have already expressed interest in implementing the system, with plans to test it as early as 2026.
Tusk believes that widespread adoption of mobile voting will significantly increase voter turnout, particularly among underrepresented groups. By utilizing an existing technology platform, he argues that citizens are more likely to engage with the democratic process. "We get lousy or corrupt government because so few people vote," Tusk asserts. "If primary turnout is 37 percent instead of 9 percent, the underlying political incentives for an elected official to change—it pushes them to the middle, and they're not rewarded for screaming and pointing fingers."
However, not everyone shares Tusk's enthusiasm for mobile voting. Cryptographers and security experts have raised concerns about the potential safety risks associated with this technology. Ron Rivest, a renowned expert in cryptography, cautions that mobile phones are not yet equipped to handle the complexities of secure voting systems. "We're not there yet, and I haven't seen anything to make me think otherwise," he states.
Furthermore, David Jefferson, another prominent voting expert, has expressed skepticism about Tusk's approach. While acknowledging Kiniry's expertise in voting system security, Jefferson points out that even with perfect cryptography, the existing vulnerabilities in online voting systems remain a concern. "Open source and perfect cryptography do not address the most serious vulnerabilities," he notes.
Despite these reservations, Tusk remains optimistic about the potential of mobile voting to solve pressing democratic issues. He argues that an electorate's reluctance to accept certain election outcomes can be a significant obstacle to meaningful change. By introducing a new technology platform, Tusk hopes to bridge this divide and foster trust in the electoral process.
While Tusk's efforts have garnered significant attention, it remains to be seen whether mobile voting will become a mainstream solution for increasing voter turnout. The challenges ahead include overcoming public skepticism and securing legislative support for this innovative approach. As Tusk himself notes, "Once the genie's out of the bottle, they can't put it back." However, for now, the success of his venture depends on convincing skeptics that mobile voting is indeed a viable path forward for strengthening democracy.
In a bid to increase voter turnout and revitalize democracy, a wealthy client has approached security expert Joe Kiniry with an unusual offer. The proposal is to fund a voting system that would allow citizens to cast their ballots via mobile phones. After some hesitation, Kiniry agreed to collaborate on the project, which he initially saw as a valuable research endeavor.
Today, Bradley Tusk, a New York City political consultant and fixer for companies like Uber, is launching his Mobile Voting Foundation's cryptography-based protocol, VoteSecure. This open-source technology aims to facilitate secure mobile voting using iPhones and Android devices. Two prominent election technology vendors have already expressed interest in implementing the system, with plans to test it as early as 2026.
Tusk believes that widespread adoption of mobile voting will significantly increase voter turnout, particularly among underrepresented groups. By utilizing an existing technology platform, he argues that citizens are more likely to engage with the democratic process. "We get lousy or corrupt government because so few people vote," Tusk asserts. "If primary turnout is 37 percent instead of 9 percent, the underlying political incentives for an elected official to change—it pushes them to the middle, and they're not rewarded for screaming and pointing fingers."
However, not everyone shares Tusk's enthusiasm for mobile voting. Cryptographers and security experts have raised concerns about the potential safety risks associated with this technology. Ron Rivest, a renowned expert in cryptography, cautions that mobile phones are not yet equipped to handle the complexities of secure voting systems. "We're not there yet, and I haven't seen anything to make me think otherwise," he states.
Furthermore, David Jefferson, another prominent voting expert, has expressed skepticism about Tusk's approach. While acknowledging Kiniry's expertise in voting system security, Jefferson points out that even with perfect cryptography, the existing vulnerabilities in online voting systems remain a concern. "Open source and perfect cryptography do not address the most serious vulnerabilities," he notes.
Despite these reservations, Tusk remains optimistic about the potential of mobile voting to solve pressing democratic issues. He argues that an electorate's reluctance to accept certain election outcomes can be a significant obstacle to meaningful change. By introducing a new technology platform, Tusk hopes to bridge this divide and foster trust in the electoral process.
While Tusk's efforts have garnered significant attention, it remains to be seen whether mobile voting will become a mainstream solution for increasing voter turnout. The challenges ahead include overcoming public skepticism and securing legislative support for this innovative approach. As Tusk himself notes, "Once the genie's out of the bottle, they can't put it back." However, for now, the success of his venture depends on convincing skeptics that mobile voting is indeed a viable path forward for strengthening democracy.
I think this whole mobile voting thing is an interesting idea... but let's be real, as parents, we know how hard it can be to get our own kids to engage with the system, let alone strangers 
. If we're going to use mobile phones to vote, shouldn't there be some kind of parental consent or age verification? I mean, my kid is still in elementary school... what if they accidentally vote for something they don't even know about 
. And what happens when the voting app gets hacked? 
. It sounds like a fancy solution to a problem that doesn't even exist yet... or at least not in my mind. I mean, have we really got to rely on technology to fix our broken democracy? It just seems like another layer of complexity that's gonna get hacked or messed up somehow 
.
. Like, come on guys, we've been over this before. Cryptography isn't magic and no app is foolproof 
It feels like another layer of bureaucracy that's just gonna make things more complicated 
.
Like, what's going on with our government that it needs to be fixed by just changing how we vote? shouldn't we be tackling some of the underlying issues? 
. All these experts are saying the same thing - our phones aren't ready for this kind of tech yet 
. I mean, think about all the times your phone has been hacked or just plain old glitched out... do you really want that to happen with your vote? 
.
But at the same time, if this can really help get more people involved in the democratic process, then it's worth a shot.
But at the same time, if we're not tryin' new things, we'll never solve the problems we're facin'.
! Bradley Tusk's got some legit ideas and I think it's dope how he's thinking outside the box. The idea of increasing voter turnout, especially among underrepresented groups, is everything 
. And I love how he's using existing tech platforms to make voting more accessible. But, I gotta ask, what's up with the security concerns? 
Cryptographers and experts are saying some major red flags 
. Let's keep it locked on mobile voting and see where it takes us 
!
it makes sense that people are less likely to vote if they think the outcome is gonna be rigged anyway 
and tusk's point about primary turnout being way lower than general elections is spot on 