3 ms·
What's your point? That it's easily socially engineered? That it is archaic, inefficient and a waste of human time?
by yomly 9y ago
What's your point? That it's easily socially engineered?
That it is archaic, inefficient and a waste of human time?
- gambiting 9y agoI'd say the point is that paper voting is extremely easy to organise, but also, most importantly, extremely easy to check and verify - you just count the votes again. With electronic machines you can't really do that, you can inspect logs but any of them can be fabricated incredibly easily.
- joosters 9y agoHow is it a waste of time? We don't hold elections that often, nor do we need their results instantly. Voting with a pencil takes about as long as voting on a touchscreen. So why is there this stupid urge to optimise?
- skywhopper 9y agoI would say voting with a pencil takes far less time for the voters. Electronic voting machines are inevitably going to be confusing to some people because they are built on asumptions about user interface that not everyone shares. But pretty much everyone who votes has a good intuition about how paper and pencil works.
- skywhopper 9y agoEfficiency is not and should not be the primary concern in a democratic vote. Rather, accuracy and verifiability are far more important. Very little human time is wasted on paper-based elections, but even if it took a relatively large amount of human time to implement an accurate, verifiable voting system, it would be well worth it.
- gameshot911 9y agoIs not accuracy inherent in efficiency? A system that is efficient but not accurate isn't efficient at all.