2 ms·

I think history shows that we don't actually do it that well, I gave one example from recent history and I think a quick study will show that elections, in ge

I think history shows that we don't actually do it that well, I gave one example from recent history and I think a quick study will show that elections, in general, are easily undermined. We want machines because they are indifferent. We can develop machine based voting systems that have a voter-verifiable receipt. We can reduce the cost of our elections and reduce the number of trusted people that must be involved with them. It removes the most common sources of error from our current flawed implementation of our democratic ideals. Expanding upon this, if we make voting cheap and easy enough, we may actually be able to expand our democracy for more direct participation at all levels of government and reduce our reliance on the currently flawed implementation of our representative system. Why would we _not_ want this? The major problem, as I see it, is that states are not assembling expert panels to either purchase or work with other states to collaboratively build a good system directly. The government purchasing process certainly plays a factor here as well, and voting systems should be classified as critical infrastructure to allow a more rational approach to their procurement and/or development.

romwell 8y ago
Objection: machines are only as indifferent as the people who make or control them. On top of that, they are opaque: it's very hard to verify that a machine does what it claims to do and nothing else. If you like machines, I present you a perfect machine: it's a clear box into which you throw paper ballots. It even counts the ballots: invariably, the result is "akira2501 won" - that is written on the outside; it works instantaneously. Any party that finds it suspicious can challenge and recount the paper ballots inside, in presence of independent observers. Since there's no better way to verify the work of a voting machine other than counting papers, this machine is as good as any machine you just described - and is definitely cheap. As for the cost - citation needed that machines actually provide any savings here.

romwell 8y ago

Objection: machines are only as indifferent as the people who make or control them. On top of that, they are opaque: it's very hard to verify that a machine does what it claims to do and nothing else. If you like machines, I present you a perfect machine: it's a clear box into which you throw paper ballots. It even counts the ballots: invariably, the result is "akira2501 won" - that is written on the outside; it works instantaneously. Any party that finds it suspicious can challenge and recount the paper ballots inside, in presence of independent observers. Since there's no better way to verify the work of a voting machine other than counting papers, this machine is as good as any machine you just described - and is definitely cheap. As for the cost - citation needed that machines actually provide any savings here.