3 ms·
We should only change vote tech to make it more secure not more efficient.
by _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
We should only change vote tech to make it more secure not more efficient.
- ethbro 8y agoCongratulations! We've managed to develop a completely secure voting device, with a formally verified codebase. The machines cost USD$150,000. Due to the cost, we will be able to deploy two machines at a single voting site in your county. Please ensure you arrive with enough time, as lines are expected.
- KSteffensen 8y agoThat's nice. You have fun with that. We'll keep our $300k and our paper ballots. No lines are expected as we've tried this before and know more or less how many will show up.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wool_gather 8y agoThe parent's `sarcasm` tags were apparently swallowed in HTML sanitization. :) It was meant to sound like a horrible idea.
- ethbro 8y agoApparently the modest nature of my proposal wasnt clear enough. I forget to really punch sarcasm in text. My point: cost is always a consideration. And in voting, has a direct correlation to such issues as deployment and voter ability to... well, vote.
- crpatino 8y agoCongratulations!!! because you allowed USD$1,500 Voting Machines to exist, you are now stuck with a dictator for life. You can console yourself saying that the despot in charge usually gets 70+% votes (in spite of being universally despised).
- _Codemonkeyism 8y agoThis depends obviously on where you are in the political spectrum. I would not like to make voting more complicated,to prevent people from voting, but the current majority in the US support making voting harder for many people. I assume you're one of those.