4 ms·
Let's think through the process of "ballot box stuffing". You'd need to put enough ballots in the box to sway the count in your favor, while being watched by m
by Klathmon 9y ago
Let's think through the process of "ballot box stuffing".
You'd need to put enough ballots in the box to sway the count in your favor, while being watched by multiple people from both "sides" who all don't trust one another.
But let's assume you are able to do that somehow (hey, maybe you paid them all off?). Great! You've swayed the counts in one precinct... In 2012 there were 2712 voting precincts in Virginia... So to sway one state, you'd need most likely thousands of people working together and not one of them can reveal the whole plan. And that will get you one state, so multiply it by 50 to really sway an election (yes, i know you wouldn't need all 50, but ether way it's still way beyond realistic). At that scale it seems like it would be easier to just convince people to vote with you.
And you'd need to do all of that without leaving any kind of paper trail. Paper costs money, printing costs money, it's not going to be cheap or easy to hide making all those ballots. Someone is going to notice. And all it takes is one slip up, and it's all over.
Nobody is saying pencil+paper voting is perfect, just that it's the best thing we have at scale, and it's extremely difficult to "hack" without someone noticing.
- valine 9y agoYou wouldn't need to swing even half the states. Swinging a single key state like Florida could have a major impact on an election.
- ebola1717 9y ago> In 2012 there were 2712 voting precincts in Virginia... So to sway one state, you'd need most likely thousands of people working together and not one of them can reveal the whole plan.
- Klathmon 9y agoBut you are still talking about thousands of people, MAYBE hundreds if it's a close election and you are really really strategic. With something electronic, at the very best you end up needing the same number of people at the same amount of locations. But this time instead of having to stuff a bunch of ballots into a box without anyone seeing you, you just need time alone with a machine at any point before voting or even during voting. (and I'll honestly admit I don't know which of those is easier, but that's before we get into all the other issues with electronic voting) I think there is a possibility that electronic voting could be better at some point in the far off future, but in reality and right now, the benefits don't even begin to outweigh the negatives.
- saimiam 9y ago> multiply it by 49 Increase by 49 or multiply by 50, no?
- Klathmon 9y agothanks, I fixed it!
- _Codemonkeyism 9y agoExactly, software hacking voting machines scales much easier.
- djrogers 9y agoAnd yet in spite of the difficulties, it happens. Even so, I’m in favor of paper ballots - I think voting machines are nothing more than rent seeking by their manufacturers. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-electio...
- rtkwe 9y agoIt's important to note I think that the article is talking about a party primary not the actual election where the increased scrutiny and number of interested parties increases several times.
- djrogers 9y agoParty primaries generally happen when other, more local offices and initiatives are in the ballot, and often the primary for the other parties as well. It is exceedingly rare (at least in California) to have a single item ballot. It’s arguable that the local / state items are more important to most voters than the party primary, so there would still be plenty of scrutiny.
- rtkwe 9y agoThat varies a lot state by state. Here in NC for instance pretty much everything is on the main November ballot and the primaries are just primaries. We don't really have things like ballot initiatives or referendums though.