3 ms·
> Making the system more efficient opens attack vectors. No. Doing that badly might have that effect, but there is no axiom which states that accurate counting
by Godel_unicode 9y ago
> Making the system more efficient opens attack vectors.
No. Doing that badly might have that effect, but there is no axiom which states that accurate counting must be slow or manual. Have electronic voting with instant tallying, with a parallel optical-scanning verification of the generated paper ballot. Then have manual spot checking of the automated counting process, with whatever sample rate you choose. This is a solved problem (ask the USPS if you want details).
Instant results which are "the ballots got wet" proof and have a totally auditable record.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago> Doing that badly might have that effect, but there is no axiom which states that accurate counting must be slow or manual. No, but there is an axiom that says the more expensive an attack is, the less likely it will be carried out. Hacking manual counting requires so absurd amounts of coordination between so many individuals, that you can pretty much discount the possibility. High technology is a vehicle of multiplying the power of individuals. The same process that makes electronic counting more efficient, makes it also much cheaper to attack. > This is a solved problem (ask the USPS if you want details). TBH, postal services screw up in that department regularly, but nobody cares, as the impact is very small.