Democracy is not in danger, this is exactly what democracy is. Like it or not but he is quite a telling representative of a big part of the population. And democracy means majority rules. As simple as that. Consider it in light of 80-20 %% rule.

> And democracy means majority rules. As simple as that.

Popular vote totals:

62,984,825: Trump 65,853,516: Clinton

Vote weights, per state, due to the electoral college: https://theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-t...

Also of course there are things like gerrymandering and voter suppression to consider. Democracy is a pretty complicated mess.

Oh please give it a rest with the “popular vote” crap. Everyone knew the rules, and the very good reasons behind them. And we all know perfectly well that all this CA outrage would be a complete non-story if the other side had used them.

That's not about democracy per se, that's electoral college/states specifics.

Still democracy in general is exactly "majority rules". In democratic society of 100 people opinion of 51 would be enough to trump and ignore whatever remaining 49 want.

That is democracy working as intended. We have just realized that democracy and widespread, instant communication are incompatible.

> We have just realized that democracy and widespread, instant communication are incompatible.

I'd say that's absolutely not true - it's a demonstration that the republic system is broken. He lost the popular vote, yet still won. That's anti-democratic, whilst being pro-republic.

True democracy would still work fine if done pragmatically - have people, when registering to vote, be given a PGP key. Have them send in a cryptographically signed email with their vote - verify that it's from the right person. Maybe package it in a very simple GUI.

Instantly, everything impractical and or wrong about the current "democracy" we have is gone, and actual democracy can start taking place.

Not sure if you forgot the '/s' tag. Please consider how widely PGP is used, and how capable someone in the bottom decile of technical savvy would be of doing that.

I think it is important that our elections use systems that are readily comprehensible to laypeople.

Cryptography is, at its core, easy to explain to the layman. (PBS explained it fairly well on a kids' show a while back, I believe.) A GUI wrapper made to send secure emails isn't a particularly difficult thing for your average user, either.

You could make it as simple as downloading an app, going to get you physically registered, having the govt. official input relevant keys into the app, and then:

Type In Your Preferred Candidate Here: [INPUT BOX]

[SEND BUTTON]

With an automatic reply saying "Thank you for voting!" at the end of it.

Though it is possible to set up a GUI to do that, I don't think it is possible to do it in a way that makes it easy to confirm that the app is really doing what it claims to. You may be able to create a system where experts can verify the integrity, but I don't think you can create a computerized system where average people can independently verify the integrity of the system.

Paper, managed by trusted humans, really shines in this kind of task. Maybe some of the trusted humans will turn out to be dishonest, but it is much harder to commit large scale fraud and then cover it up.

Open-source the application, and have people check the checksums of the .IPAs and .APKs if they want to verify. A simple GUI wrapper for email wouldn't be particularly complicated implementation-wise, so it wouldn't take a security analyst to vet, either.

But the problems we had with the last election weren't caused by fraudulent voting. Everyone voted properly, it's just that another country spent some money convincing us to vote the way that they wanted us to. Even if we moved to a direct democracy system and gave everybody unbreakable crypto, it wouldn't stop them from watching TV and sharing junk on social media.

Remember, Trump lost the popular vote. If we had moved to a direct democracy system, assuming as little changes as you say will, he wouldn't be standing in the White House now.

The reason for crypographically secure voting is to stop any form of election-interference that could happen, because that naturally would be the biggest concern from moving to a digital solution.

why ? not really. ancient athens was like that and in retrospect it worked well.