4 ms·
That's just it, it isn't precise, at all. No one seems to remember 2000. It was a disaster in large part due to the lack of precision of paper voting. Those who
by mentat 10y ago
That's just it, it isn't precise, at all. No one seems to remember 2000. It was a disaster in large part due to the lack of precision of paper voting. Those who don't remember are doomed to repeat I guess.
- bsder 10y agoThey were punchcards, not paper. At this point, there is no reason not to use actual paper. Computer scanning and counting has gotten really good.
- Steuard 10y agoThat doesn't really help, though. With "marks on paper" voting, you don't have to deal with the hanging chad problem, but you get whole crops of people who don't fill the bubbles completely, or who partially mark two different bubbles, or a whole litany of other potential ambiguities. I still agree that paper isn't vulnerable to the mass-scale undetectable vote-rigging that electronic machines have the potential to be! But it does have its own weaknesses: people who decided to switch to electronic definitely had credible reasons in mind at the time.
- rawfan 10y agoIn Germany it's all paper and actual people doing the counting. I know Germany is not as big as the US, but it's not a small country. We usually have the first results at 6pm on voting day and the final results usually don't differ much from the first results.