3 ms·
they might understand, but they also want to profit as much as possible on it ;) anyway, I like to talk about "archaic" systems in terms of fast and slow (rath
by scotu 6y ago
they might understand, but they also want to profit as much as possible on it ;)
anyway, I like to talk about "archaic" systems in terms of fast and slow (rather than old/archaic/obsolete. for example when I talk about the reason why election processes should not be "computerized"/networked it's because you want a slow system, it's a feature. The slow system gives you a slow result (but in an acceptable time), but it also avoids fast/at scale fraud.
I think slow while still holding slightly negative connotation is not as negative as archaic and other option (slow food is good)
- tim333 6y agoOr a mix of slow and fast. Like for voting I was thinking maybe give you an ID and passcode to vote online via a web form but then as well as an electronic tally "Joe Blogs is voter ID 12343473" is sent to a printer and "ID 12343473 voted Trump" to another printer with the results going in a big heap. That way people can't find what you voted without going through two huge stacks of paper which would presumably be guarded anyway but there is a paper record to audit / recount people worry the votes are wrong. Though I guess you still have the issue of people offering to buy your id+code. I guess with a house owner token you could trade it electronically but have to go register the change and a government office within 30 days for something for it to be legally valid.
- scotu 6y agobut why? there is literally no need for that kind of tech in elections. That aspect of election ain't broken, don't fix it
- tim333 6y agoI guess I was thinking ease of voting rather than having to trek to a polling station. But yeah I see your point especially in places like the UK where no one complains much about the system.
- whateveracct 6y agovote by mail is a way simpler & proven way to make voting easier