It goes like this:
- Mandatory voting with a difficult-to-counterfeit ID
- Restrictions on mail-in (or Internet) votes to only those who have strong reasons e.g. unplanned work travel for irregular technical support, and in contrast to in-person votes, those votes will not be anonymous/traceability number provided
- More than one in-person day of voting (put another way, an early voting period of e.g. one week)
- Open-source code and eventually hardware, electronic machines with separately tabulated printouts that store the votes on the machine, and also transmit to central server(s), which continuously are monitored via live-stream, and are physically secured and protected e.g. against people throwing matches in them late at night
This compromise addresses the following concerns:
- Mandatory voting forces the government to provide the voter IDs, to provide the necessary transportation to the polls (or a voting booth on the move), and to force employers to permit voting time – addressing the economic concerns about voting integrity policies
- Inherently easy to buy/coerce remote voting, only is limited to a very small number (e.g. deployed military personnel) of people, which is a level of potential fraud that people can tolerate. To avoid issues with manipulation e.g. in transit, the votes are traceable back to individual voters
- More than one day of voting, relieves the scheduling and logistical difficulties of in-person voting on a single day
- Open-source and continuously monitored hardware, gives the capability over time for actually secure voting systems (not what happens now, given the long history of severe vulnerabilities in voting terminals), provides a stereotyped means of checking and auditing results (no one-off Cyber Ninjas), and the control procedures make it hard physically to destroy ballots; moreover, tight control procedures mean that if ballots are destroyed, the roster of people affected at that site can be used to reach out to them so they can cast replacement votes
None of this is to say, for example, that mandatory voting or mail-in voting is a good idea/optimal. But these procedures provide a systemic way to address all major voting integrity concerns, other than cost, which would increase.