3 ms·
You don't know that the ballot box wasn't switched in transit, nor presumably that the postman in your area didn't switch all the voting papers. Any system tha
by pbhjpbhj 6y ago
You don't know that the ballot box wasn't switched in transit, nor presumably that the postman in your area didn't switch all the voting papers.
Any system that's anonymised seems to require trust.
- hef19898 6y agoThat's why you count locally and centrally. And you keep paper records for the counts at each level. And the ballot boxes. With observers from all parties being allowed to witness the counting. Again, paper ballots and mail ballots are solved problem in almost every western democracy. Multitudes of solutions out there. Just pick one. Not having anonymous votes is the first step into totalitarianism, if you ask me.
- pbhjpbhj 6y agoDon't you need a large group prepared to enact revenge on people for voting "wrongly" for non-anonymous voting, in general, to be a problem? That seems like it's not a problem until you've got a large group of fascists/totalitarians already?
- AdamJacobMuller 6y agoIt doesn't matter, because a single postman or a single ballot box being tampered with isn't enough (in virtually all cases) to swing any major elections. Any coordination to defraud paper ballots on a scale large enough to change the result of a major election would require so many individuals that it would be implausible for them to all keep a secret. Massive election-changing widespread fraud of an electronic system could in theory be completed by a single individual acting entirely alone.