4 ms·
And I think we should get rid of those counting machines as well. Humans are perfectly capable of counting, and they don't mistake a half-filled bubble for "no
by Klathmon 8y ago
And I think we should get rid of those counting machines as well.
Humans are perfectly capable of counting, and they don't mistake a half-filled bubble for "no vote", and aren't susceptible to changing 1% of votes at random or at the final tally. And it's not nearly as possible to trick or force hundreds or thousands of humans to help rig an election, compared to a handful of people at the final assembly line of that counting machine factory.
- ebiester 8y agoYou don't think humans can't or won't misread votes, especially as a mistake? You have to have two people (one D, one R) both looking at each one at that point.
- Klathmon 8y agoI think a human can and will misread votes, but 2 humans? 5 humans? 20 humans? The more contentious the voting is, the more people can gather around and count along. And there isn't really a limit to how many can be a part of it, if it grows to be too large, additional work can be done to accommodate the extra people. Counting will take longer, but it will be that much more secure. Hell, go ahead and throw a counting machine on there as well, but don't rely on it, and don't have it be the single source of truth, or only use humans in case of a "recount" or something.
- ebiester 8y agoI'd work with a sampling procedure before the certification combined with using humans if below a certain threshold.