Loading issue research
Blockchain voting should wait for a proven voter-identity system and federal security standards, given that the only U.S. pilot was discontinued after researchers found serious vulnerabilities.
Verification Status
AI-researched, unverifiedLast Reviewed
Jul 4, 2026
Cited Sources
4
What is failing, what we would change, and the conclusion we are willing to defend.
The party's position, migrated faithfully from the 2024 platform: blockchain voting has potential (decentralized ledgers, cryptographic security, transparency), but the document is explicit that potential isn't permission. "It cannot be rushed; it must be earned." Its core structural argument is sequencing: don't build blockchain voting before the harder, prerequisite problem (secure voter identity authentication) is solved and proven at a smaller scale first.
Before any state adopts blockchain voting, first develop and implement a state-level blockchain ID system specifically to solve voter authentication: testing and refining identity verification, privacy, and access at a smaller scale before voting itself is on the line.
A bipartisan federal commission to set the standards blockchain voting must meet: rigorous testing, verified security, and a proven ability to serve voters fairly. Adoption is gated on meeting that standard, regardless of enthusiasm for the technology.
Federal funding and public-private partnerships to support R&D in both the prerequisite blockchain ID systems and voting technology itself.
(2026 addition) Say plainly what's happened since 2024: the one blockchain-voting pilot in US history (West Virginia's 2018 program for overseas military voters, using the Voatz app) was discontinued in 2020 after MIT security researchers found serious vulnerabilities. No state has run a live blockchain-voting program since. That's the caution being validated by the only test case available. Here's what would change that: a state-level blockchain ID system proven at smaller scale on a non-voting government service, and a blockchain-voting pilot that publishes its security audit and survives the same caliber of scrutiny that caught Voatz's flaws. Clear both, and the door opens. Until then, this remains a research-and-standards priority rather than a near-term deployment plan.
Blockchain voting should wait for a proven voter-identity system and federal security standards, given that the only U.S. pilot was discontinued after researchers found serious vulnerabilities.
Turn frustration into useful pressure.
If this position misses evidence or a lived consequence, challenge it. If it holds up, help test it locally and connect it to the issues around it.