13 ms·
Nope. You never can audit most of it. Especially the hardware and firmware at vote time. And that's a false arg anyway, even if you could "audit" it (ask the h
by jakeogh 7y ago
Nope. You never can audit most of it. Especially the hardware and firmware at vote time.
And that's a false arg anyway, even if you could "audit" it (ask the hardware nicely to not lie to you:), it's still a (really) bad idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI
- darawk 7y ago> And that's a false arg anyway, even if you could "audit" it (ask the hardware nicely to not lie to you:) If individuals can audit their own votes, the hardware cannot lie.
- jakeogh 7y agoYou then have a trivially broken voting system.
- darawk 7y agoI know why you think that is so. But I have already explained elsewhere in this thread why you're wrong. So why don't you look into it a little for yourself.
- jakeogh 7y agoNothing you wrote negates the requirement of incoercibility. In all instances, the check can lie to you OR the vote system is broken. Electronic (aka proxy) voting is a requirement on the checklist to skip physical presense.