3 ms·
"feature makes it sound like you're OK with disenfranchising people" ...if you assume the least useful interpretation of the comment. Could having a real physi
by jakeogh 8y ago
"feature makes it sound like you're OK with disenfranchising people"
...if you assume the least useful interpretation of the comment. Could having a real physical object to examine be useful?
The paper as a "backup" is worse than backwards, it's an excuse to implement electronic voting, and since there is "no evidence" of problems, why would you need to examine the paper anyway?
- vlovich123 8y agoYou'd examine the paper to ensure integrity of the system. That's literally the point. Just like physical ballots are kept around. Also, I think you're misunderstanding. The "no evidence" conclusion comes from auditing the paper ballot (as Schneier points out in that blog post above). You don't get to say "no evidence of problems" until the electronic & paper ballot agree. If there's disagreement you don't know which method is right & thus you have to hold a new election.
- jakeogh 8y ago"You'd examine the paper to ensure integrity of the system." Then just use paper. Recounts (which is what your suggestion will get called in practice) require legal maneuvers which are fought by the winning side. Adding a electronic component to voting will never lower it's complexity.