2 ms·

I disagree. When you're casting a vote on paper, it's pretty easy to check that your vote is not being observed. When you're casting an electronic vote, you h

I disagree. When you're casting a vote on paper, it's pretty easy to check that your vote is not being observed. When you're casting an electronic vote, you have no such option. You can claim the vote is secret. The developers of the voting machine can claim the vote is secret. But the voter has no way to verify this. Secret voting is too important to be left to voting machines.

e12e 9y ago
> When you're casting a vote on paper, it's pretty easy to check that your vote is not being observed. One thing I've been thinking about lately, is that while we all probably have better intuition for "protecting" our paper vote, I'm not convinced that the huge advances in monitoring technology, covert and generally available, hasn't to an extent invalidated this somewhat. You really only need to be able to read some markings on paper (in IR, via some kind of fairly low resolution x-ray, what have you) - with the voter (eg: general camera surveillance showing a person entering a voting booth) - in order to monitor a vote. It's certainly much higher demand on manpower to do it, but I don't think it should be discounted - the payoff will be proportional to the power wielded by the public office being elected for. So while I think "lets do electronic voting!" is a crazy blanked-statement to make in order to improve security, I don't think we should be so certain analog voting is as secure today, as it was in the 80s and earlier.
- pm24601 9y ago
  > I don't think we should be so certain analog voting is as secure today, as it was in the 80s and earlier. correct - the machines are vulnerable even if the paper is not.