3 ms·

I don't think the machines matter as long as the vote can be replayed/recounted without ambiguity. An idea: https://medium.com/@dotnetmike/touch-screen-voting-

• swader999 7y ago
  It needs a paper record, this needs to be the source of truth.
  • daveguy 7y ago
    Not just a paper record. A hand marked paper record. If it doesn't go through a computer first it can't be altered. There are several states that do it this way. It's a "Scantron" style ballot. Fill in the vote, run it through a tally machine and save the ballot. The tally machines could be messed with, but if there is evidence of tampering with the tally there is always the authentic original ballot.
    • swader999 7y ago
      Yes!
  • pmoriarty 7y ago
    If you've got a paper record, just use that instead of the machines. Machines just add more opportunities for fraud.
• bediger4000 7y ago
  That's traditionally been the problem with voting machines: a "recount" just re-read some tally. Combine this with voting machine companies being opaque, not recognizing obvious flaws and their executives promising to deliver states to particular candidates (https://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm https://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm), and you begin to feel that all the suspicion is justified.
• ska 7y ago
  > as long as the vote can be replayed/recounted without ambiguity. Isn't this the core problem with most electronic voting as currently implemented in the US? I mean, that no such guarantee exists?