4 ms·

> it’s not enough for elections to just be safe. They also need to be safe in a way that is obvious to non-cryptographers Not as much so in nations where peopl

> it’s not enough for elections to just be safe. They also need to be safe in a way that is obvious to non-cryptographers Not as much so in nations where people generally trust experts and government officials, and where conspiracy theories are mostly on the fringe (i.e. not the U.S.). Although I agree that it's preferable if non-techies can understand the mechanisms, and the downside of paper ballots plus mail-in is already pretty small.

shaki-dora 9y ago
Although I trust experts and, for the most part, the government, I see that sort of trust breaking in the society I live in (Germany), as well as others I follow (the US, Britain). The power of taking a conspiracy-minded neighbor to witness a transparent process to count the votes is breathtaking, and even a description of the process is a powerful argument. It’s a really easy call in this debate, because the downsides of the process are neglible: the paper and pen process in my country produces results just as fast as what I see in the US. Among the only substantive arguments I can think of is that US elections have a lot more items up for vote (ballot initiatives and the proverbial dog catchers), which makes hand-counting more cumbersome.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> Not as much so in nations where people generally trust experts and government officials The election is where that trust is anchored at. Whether people trust the current government can change. If trust in the election result and thus trust in the next government's legitimacy depends on trust in the current government, you have no safe way out of a situation where trust in the current government is gone--which ultimately is the reason we have elections in the first place: As long as everyone is content with the current government, you don't really need elections at all. The whole point of having elections is that you can change a government that you don't trust, should the need arise.

shaki-dora 9y ago

Although I trust experts and, for the most part, the government, I see that sort of trust breaking in the society I live in (Germany), as well as others I follow (the US, Britain). The power of taking a conspiracy-minded neighbor to witness a transparent process to count the votes is breathtaking, and even a description of the process is a powerful argument. It’s a really easy call in this debate, because the downsides of the process are neglible: the paper and pen process in my country produces results just as fast as what I see in the US. Among the only substantive arguments I can think of is that US elections have a lot more items up for vote (ballot initiatives and the proverbial dog catchers), which makes hand-counting more cumbersome.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

> Not as much so in nations where people generally trust experts and government officials The election is where that trust is anchored at. Whether people trust the current government can change. If trust in the election result and thus trust in the next government's legitimacy depends on trust in the current government, you have no safe way out of a situation where trust in the current government is gone--which ultimately is the reason we have elections in the first place: As long as everyone is content with the current government, you don't really need elections at all. The whole point of having elections is that you can change a government that you don't trust, should the need arise.