> Banks solve a different problem. The reason why banks can be computerized does not apply to voting. I disagree, fraud detection and security is the best we c

> Banks solve a different problem. The reason why banks can be computerized does not apply to voting. I disagree, fraud detection and security is the best we currently have and people trust it due to these areas. > Bank functioning is observable by the people concerned: You can see if money you didn't spend left your account, and if you failed to get paid. Failures are detected very quickly. I can observe my votes were recorded correctly, others can't see them, data would be anonymized/fingerprinted/hashed when counting. > Voting is anonymous (to render intimidation and bribery of voters ineffective). Financial systems do not allow other people to see your data/account amounts and more. Who people vote for is easily determined by metadata and you really think security by obscurity on our current system is really that private? Lots of holes and ways to get voter data in security by obscurity. You don't think the voting machines and secretary of state offices/recorders have that data? No need if digital and verifiable. I think people have a false sense of security how private their votes are. > It's not sufficient that citizens votes are counted correctly, it is necessary that no spurious votes are also counted. You can easily anonymize data when running reports and fingerprint/hash results. Patterns and anomalies are much easier to find in a data based system, just as fraud is detected by the digital financial system. > The means by which electronic banking is rendered safe are therefore much harder to apply. Agree to disagree. > Voting must also not just be secure, but be demonstrably secure to the voters. With paper voting, you can go and watch the votes being counted. People trust their financial system but wouldn't if it was all on paper by some individual counted and just given their word that it was correct... There can still be a paper trail and reports/vote records can be kept forever. > At every stage of the process, the answer to 'how do you show the public that the process has integrity' is helped by the fact that the votes are on macroscopic objects whose movement is obvious. Electronic voting systems lack this feature. There wouldn't be any blackbox or hackable machines to trust, you trust that your vote was securely counted online, in an app or if you want down at the paper ballot and entered into this system. But again, financial transactions are trusted, I don't trust random ATMs that are like random voting machines, I trust the app/site where my financial data resides. The middle man is security by obscurity and more insecure currently than if it was truly online/digital. Our current elections system are all a patchwork of hackable areas. If we had a better standard voting system that expected hacking and fraud, like financials, we'd be better off on security, verifiability and reliability without election day games and suppression filled with security by obscurity. Votes currently go into the ether, into various unverifiable counting systems, counted by people who have biases, entered into black box voting systems that are hackable, transferred differently from these precincts to the recorder and there are so many holes along the way it is not trustworthy in any way. Your vote could go down the memory hole and you'd never know.