3 ms·
In theory they're much better because votes are tallied pretty much instantly with very little effort. Running hand counts is very expensive and it's way easier
by rtkwe 8y ago
In theory they're much better because votes are tallied pretty much instantly with very little effort. Running hand counts is very expensive and it's way easier to quantify the value of the cheaper counting than the cost of insecure elections.
- sverige 8y agoWhat need is there for instant tallies? Elections are usually in November, winners take office in January. Plenty of time to sort it out if there's a question. It has worked mostly pretty well for a long time. And I have yet to see the expense directly compared. How much do the machines cost to purchase and maintain? How much does the overtime for election officials to count the ballots?
- setr 8y agowell, it's also meant to eliminate the issue of recounts, can be better audited as a process, and minimizes human error in what is a very manual and repetitive task. tbh if computers should be used anywhere, its in something like this. It's literally counting, and a lot of it but alas
- nightcracker 8y ago> can be better audited as a process What could possibly be better audited than a public count that any concerned citizen can visit to oversee? Digital machines are as opaque as it gets for auditing.
- XorNot 8y agoAnd single points of compromise. The biggest problem with all conspiracy theories is that they require an implausibly large number of people to stay silent. Whereas computers stay silent by default, and let one person in the right place potentially control everything.
- rtkwe 8y agoPeople want the news as quickly as possible. > Elections are usually in November, winners take office in January. Plenty of time to sort it out if there's a question. This is an issue as you reach larger offices in particular the presidency where there's an entire transition process that has to happen where the incoming president has to pull together the team to run the state and get read into all the various secret programs so that day 1 they're ready to run the country.
- adrianN 8y agoWhat can counting cost? A dollar per vote? I think spending a few hundred million every couple of years is not that big of a deal in exchange for much harder tampering.
- Buge 8y agoWouldn't the optical-scan ballots listed as the best option in the article still have that benefit? To me it seems the benefit of full electronic is avoiding paper both for environmental effects and physical annoyance of moving it around.
- rtkwe 8y agoYes personally I think optical scan ballots are probably the best solution for both worlds. They're basically counted as the votes are given by the machine and provide a full paper trail that can be fully audited later. They do have some problems with people incorrectly marking the sheet (eg not filling in the bubble fully). They can break down which is a little troublesome but the votes can still be tallied by alternate means.
- nightcracker 8y agoAh yes, very expensive... God forbid you need 10-20 people per district for a couple of hours to count the votes, the costs, someone thinks of the costs! I'm not even convinced that at face value the development, manufacture, distribution and protection of these voting machines are remotely close as cheap as just counting votes the good old way.