3 ms·
sure, but there's this notion of "oh the election is crap because shady things happened in the back room." if you have three counts, which shouldn't get out of
by a-dub 5y ago
sure, but there's this notion of "oh the election is crap because shady things happened in the back room." if you have three counts, which shouldn't get out of sync in the first place, then the margin for contesting the election shrinks considerably!
although, of course, there is no technical fix for someone who trolls the process if they don't get what they want. i do think there's value in making it feel a lot more like there's less blind trust in times of contentious elections though. maybe it would just be theater and not really achieve much more than what we have today in terms of real security, but if by showing realtime hashes of the counts that agree as a voter scans their votes in each machine, especially if one of those machines is operated by people they trust, increases trust in the process, then it seems a great net win.
- alistairSH 5y agoI trust people (as a group; individuals can be real dicks) more than a literal black-box that can’t really audited because the software is proprietary. As noted elsewhere, election fraud with paper doesn’t scale well. With software, it might (depending on implementation).