Actually where people live, it's different people (as a general rule people in power or need to gain into power) who adopt a gander at strategies to settle/control the structure, and not reasonable and superior to normal individuals.
People, and when we're talking about people, we're examining more than 2 particular individuals, have interchange perspectives, destinations, needs, want and motivations. All around, voting is about:
Conveying a circumstance on a political request or inspiration (like voting for a political agent - think general national choices, decisions like the continuous Brexit calamity)
Naming someone into a position of depiction or power (like picking an administration official, corporate specialist/board part, or even as essential as a school delegate)
The essential factor in voting is legitimizing the outcome in light of voting demonstrates reinforce, where lion's offer support (or the system that prompts an outcome) is used to legitimize the outcome.
If you look at it starting there of view, the primary regard a blockchain has, is that it ensures whatever vote record is entered, isn't upset (ie expressive move settling - that is, the record on the blockchian can't be controlled).
Regardless, in case you consider conditions that may be "hazardous", the blockchain may make a substantial number of those conditions more "dangerous" for particular voters.
Two or three outlines:
Autocracies - since voting is typically a state controlled process, it has a tendency to be anything other than hard to comprehend which vote was tossed by who since they can understand when and where/how you settle on the decision. Since the blockchain keeps a copy of your vote, the organization can without a doubt look through each vote and comprehend if you didn't vote for them, and do bundles of horrendous things to you after the vote is tossed.
Despot organizations - like representation 1, beside there may moreover be neighborhood decline interests, who can weight and harrass people already, in the midst of and after the vote, to ensure they get their heading.
Deteriorate/graceless organizations - various countries have clumsy and decline political systems (even semi-law based ones). Surely, even in the USA - remember the 2000 choices between Al Gore and Geroge W Bush - the definition and system used to count and join/restrict votes relied upon neighborhood enlistment methods and association chooses that have nothing to do with the count itself.
Nothing can energize "secure" your vote in those conditions.
NOTE: You may think, well, in our day and age, we have the web and mobile phones. In any case, who will guarantee that your vote checks, and in what way will you be secure in case you have to exhibit your character to vote (when your character is the thing that opens you to singular devilishness, and not by any means the vote).
No one is to a great degree uneasy of voting - it's the outcomes or the potential peril to you (or your family) that chooses your doubt that everything is great and great, and none of that is settled with the blockchain.
Endeavor it in a fundamental social occasion test if you don't confide in me… Play out a bit of the circumstances I said in a bit of get-together setting and check whether you feel secure voting with blockchain.
So in fact indeed, however practically and for all intents and purposes no.