4 ms·

I agree with that to a degree. The problem is we are trading off technical problems for corruption. For counting things, it seems like computers would be a good

• rwbhn 7y ago
  Lots of good posts out there about why electronic voting (w/out a paper trail) is a bad idea. Here's one: https://www.markpack.org.uk/160622/why-electronic-voting-is-still-a-bad-idea-tom-scott/ https://www.markpack.org.uk/160622/why-electronic-voting-is-...
• simion314 7y ago
  >For counting things, it seems like computers would be a good fit. You could keep the computers but you also have the papers sealed in boxes. Then you can manually check 1-5% of the votes and make sure the machines are correct. Or if someone contests the count and a judge decides the reasons are fair you can count again all the votes in that polling station.
  • thomk 7y ago
    I like that, agreed.
• ken 7y ago
  For counting pieces of paper, machines sound like a good fit. Any capabilities beyond the literal needs (i.e., counting) sound like an invitation for mistakes and corruption. Your phone has 100,000 times as much memory as the Apollo Guidance Computer, but nobody would ever use a smartphone for actual spacecraft guidance. UNIVAC famously analyzed the 1952 presidential election. Today we've got about twice as many voters, so maybe get a computer twice as powerful as a UNIVAC.
  • thomk 7y ago
    Upvote for mentioning the Apollo Guidance Computer!