3 ms·
Sure, it's a good system. But, of course, if you had a camera, voters might reasonably be worried that you would combine the footage with vote order and figure
by aeturnum 6y ago
Sure, it's a good system.
But, of course, if you had a camera, voters might reasonably be worried that you would combine the footage with vote order and figure our who voted when.
- WalterBright 6y agoSure, the counter would have to be set up so the order of the votes cast is not retrievable. Any display should be only the total of votes counted, not the tally for each item on the ballot. This doesn't seem hard at all to do right.
- aeturnum 6y agoI agree that you could easily design a system where you could have video of everyone dropping their ballots into a ballot box and it would still be impossible to associate a particular vote with a voter. However, that's not the standard. The standard is avoiding the appearance of being able to track votes. I don't trust the people who make voting machine software or the government. You don't know that your voting tabulation software correctly anonymizes the results and you shouldn't need that technical knowledge to feel safe. The correct approach is to make a system that guarantees what we want and would be impossible for a bad actor to abuse.
- WalterBright 6y agoThe gold standard would be an auditable ballot trail from voter to final tally. Any gaps in that leads to suspicion of error and fraud. That leads to bad things, as recent events amply illustrated. Yes, it can be done while still having a secret ballot.
- loveistheanswer 6y ago>The correct approach is to make a system that guarantees what we want and would be impossible for a bad actor to abuse. No such system is possible
- WalterBright 6y agoWe can do a heluva lot better.