2 ms·
I guess I just disagree. I just don't see what a safe secure electronic voting system would give us over the current paper system that makes it worth the downsi
by Klathmon 10y ago
I guess I just disagree. I just don't see what a safe secure electronic voting system would give us over the current paper system that makes it worth the downsides.
And just to clarify, "validating" your vote is very simple. You just need to watch the box all day. You can (at least in my area) arrive at the opening of polls, inspect the ballot box, watch it get locked, then sit there and watch that thing all day. You could have 10 people, 100 people, all on different "sides" all watching the same box. Then when it comes time to count, you count along.
By being there the whole time, you validate with your own eyes that nobody stuffed the box, and that every vote was counted.
Sure, there are "attacks" that can be made against that, but they are very complicated and risky, and again even if you pull them off, you've just "hacked" a single district in a single county in a single state. You'll need a LOT of those to win an election, and not a single person involved can ever speak of it.
- angry_octet 10y agoThis reminds me of an effective technique for hacking an election: keeping the people who would vote against you from coming out to vote at all. For example, by threatening a law and order crackdown in the area. Busting people for minor traffic infractions, checking if they have outstanding warrants, etc. This is greatly facilitated by per-booth vote tallies, and pushing people to use a local booth. It might be that electronic voting would allow voting from many places, and hence alleviate the problem. But I'm guessing there will still be restriction of polling booth locations to make it inconvenient for some people to vote.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]