2 ms·
Sure, but it's still a tiny portion of people who can be chosen to count the votes, and each one can only verify that they themselves have counted accurately.
by tshaddox 5y ago
Sure, but it's still a tiny portion of people who can be chosen to count the votes, and each one can only verify that they themselves have counted accurately.
- heavyset_go 5y agoI think there's value in the fact that voting is transparent enough that anyone can verify elections. There's also value in "John Doe from church and my cousin helped with the recount" versus "Three top 'experts' say it's fine, but I heard two of them work for Facebook!" or "We just have to trust what Palantir's consultants say."
- nuerow 5y ago> Sure, but it's still a tiny portion of people who can be chosen to count the votes The counting process is open to any interested party, and more importantly the ballots are made available to any group interested in auditing them. > and each one can only verify that they themselves have counted accurately. What part do you believe might be missing?
- tshaddox 5y agoWhat do you mean? I’m pretty sure a random citizen cannot just ask for millions of ballots and count all of them. When you help counting, you’re only counting a tiny portion of the ballots.