4 ms·
> If the same security demands were required when postal voting was introduced in 1990, it would never have been allowed He has a point there. Transportation,
by barnacs 10y ago
> If the same security demands were required when postal voting was introduced in 1990, it would never have been allowed
He has a point there. Transportation, heavy machinery, power grids, cruical infrastructure, healthcare, economy and so on all increasingly run computer systems with questionable security. Lives and world order depend on them. Are we really going to draw the line at voting? (edit: expanded on this point a bit)
Trust on the scale of several years is a difficult thing. People go from lovers to archenemies in that time.
But yes, some long term projects do need stability and long term support to become fruitful. You could introduce constraints to support this, or trust the voters to take it into account.
But even more important than time is the granularity of trust. Just as in everyday life I trust different people to different degrees in different domains, I would love to have a voting system that reflects this with regards to political representatives or activists.
- badsock 10y agoYes, we need to draw a line at voting. It's a single event, where a choice that can be encoded in a single byte of pure information has enormous consequences in terms of power allocation. If you can change that byte across even a small percentage of voting machines, you can leverage that into control of the country's government. All of the examples you listed are continuously running, auditable, highly heterogeneous systems that can have multiple parties cross-checking because there isn't the absolute need for the actions of the participants to be untraceable back to them, the way it needs to be with voting.