4 ms·
The Only Safe Election Is a Low-Tech Election
- jeffrallen 7y agoI work on e-voting systems and I approve of this message.
- tunap 7y agoHaving worked on Accuvotee systems in the past, I concur. However, live feeds of the hand count are an absolute must. Teh shenanigans(criteria to throw out votes) that occurs behind closed doors needs exposure scrutiny.
- funcDropShadow 7y agoIn Germany, every citizen is allowed to watch the counting at his local election buro. I think that is what is needed, and the larger parties send one member to every single room where counting is happening. So you need to involve a lot of people if you want to forge an election at scale.
- isaaafc 7y agoSummary of why e-voting is bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI A newer video basically reiterating the points: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs
- kitpierce 7y agoI’m all for paper backups/verification of voting systems, but perhaps it’s time to consider open-source election software w peer review and/or open-hardware in addition to “low-tech” election oversight?
- foxyv 7y agoLow-Tech elections are fraught with similar perils. Paper votes can be forged, discarded, modified and cloned as easy as pie. Not to mention impersonation of voters, theft of mail in ballots and registration of deceased voters. Then again, a single person cannot modify the results of an entire election. In addition the risk of being caught is greater because you are doing these things in person.
- EricE 7y agoDuh! Thumb (or other finger) in ink, ink on paper, done. Highly resilient to all kinds of attacks. Drop dead simple. Less is more.