3 ms·
You could even still have a counting machine: stick the papers in it, it scans the vote, it spits out the paper and humans do their own manual count. Compare th
by williamdclt 6y ago
You could even still have a counting machine: stick the papers in it, it scans the vote, it spits out the paper and humans do their own manual count. Compare the numbers of the unbiased but hackable machine and the biased but unhackable humans.
Not sure it's a step in the good direction, too easy to remove the humans some time later, but if we want to use technology to make counting more secure there's definitely easy ways
- dsr_ 6y agoThis is how Massachusetts has been doing it for years. Fast local counts, complete paper trail.
- specialist 6y agoYup. The Australian Ballot is private voting, public counting. The gold standard implementation is ballots cast at poll sites, tabulated on site, the moment the polls close, all results immediately shared publicly. For better or for worse, many postal balloting implementations are as bad as touchscreen voting, election integrity wise. Much care is needed to preserve voter privacy and ensure physical chain of custody. For example, many jurisdictions process ballots daily, image both signatures and votes, using image processing to recognize votes, and adjudicate voter intent (manually override errors) in the database. One side effect of daily processing is the running daily total. What you and I would call tabulation, but admins claim only the final report is the tabulation. Etc.
- forty 6y agoThat works only as long as the machine is truly optional, ie you cannot have a case of people not able to vote because the machine doesn't work.
- stepstop 6y ago> That works only as long as the machine is truly optional, ie you cannot have a case of people not able to vote because the machine doesn't work. The OP said the machine was for counting, not for voting.