4 ms·
> Couldn't largely distributed digital systems also be designed? Probably, but it would probably be so complex that only a small subset of the population is ab
by dividuum 6y ago
> Couldn't largely distributed digital systems also be designed?
Probably, but it would probably be so complex that only a small subset of the population is able to understand how it works. For a vote that’s accepted by the general population you want a process that’s as simple as possible. Everyone understands how paper works.
> Whatever is written on that paper or how it's handled better also be provably secure somehow.
Here that’s largely solved by having lots of volunteers that do the counting. It should be pretty hard to compromise that.
- mNovak 6y agoI'm not super convinced that the public really demands to understand the whole system, as long as it's perceived to 'work' and isn't confusing in itself. As others have pointed out, we all use myriad important systems that we hardly understand. The volunteers bit and generally very human process of counting votes actually seems like a huge attack surface for anyone to 'miscount' votes they don't like. Theoretically everyone's work can be double checked, but does this actually happen outside a recount? It's a huge amount of work in the first place, I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't the resources for it. What I'll give in-person voting is the human autonomy bit. In principle someone is physically looking at me and my ID, and I go into the booth alone. Even mail-in doesn't accomplish this one.