5 ms·

I’m curious, do you distinguish between ballot counting machines (what the NH SoS is talking about) and voting machines (your term)? I understand “voting machi

I’m curious, do you distinguish between ballot counting machines (what the NH SoS is talking about) and voting machines (your term)? I understand “voting machine” to be any mechanism that acts as a substitute for a paper ballot, or that acts as an intermediary between you and a paper ballot. And I would agree that the former are a terrible idea and the latter probably don’t provide much net benefit. But ballot counting machines are a different matter. Here’s the thing: there’s no voting process without a ballot counting machine. It’s just a matter of whether that machine will be a carbon-based one subject to bias, fatigue, boredom and hunger, or an electronic one that excels at stupid-simple repetitive tasks and is subject to none of those things.

eru 4y ago
There's a third option: a mechanical ballot counter. I know that human beings are fallible. That's why I wrote: > I know that you can use enough cryptography and enough open sourcing to make [electronic machines] secure, but what might convince me wouldn't convince the 'village idiot'. People are used to the failure modes of other humans. And they trust other humans in a way they don't trust machines. This is similar to how juries still put a lot of stock in eye witnesses.
- velcrovan 4y ago
  How is “mechanical ballot counter” a third, distinct option from “ballot counting machine”? Are you saying that if it had no electronics and operated solely by a human turning a crank on a bunch of gears, springs and levers, people would see it as more reliable and trustworthy?
  - eru 4y ago
    > Are you saying that if it had no electronics and operated solely by a human turning a crank on a bunch of gears, springs and levers, people would see it as more reliable and trustworthy? Potentially, yes. Especially if you used off-the-shelf machines that IBM built in 1920. In any case, that's just a distraction. Just use humans.

eru 4y ago

There's a third option: a mechanical ballot counter. I know that human beings are fallible. That's why I wrote: > I know that you can use enough cryptography and enough open sourcing to make [electronic machines] secure, but what might convince me wouldn't convince the 'village idiot'. People are used to the failure modes of other humans. And they trust other humans in a way they don't trust machines. This is similar to how juries still put a lot of stock in eye witnesses.

velcrovan 4y ago
How is “mechanical ballot counter” a third, distinct option from “ballot counting machine”? Are you saying that if it had no electronics and operated solely by a human turning a crank on a bunch of gears, springs and levers, people would see it as more reliable and trustworthy?
- eru 4y ago
  > Are you saying that if it had no electronics and operated solely by a human turning a crank on a bunch of gears, springs and levers, people would see it as more reliable and trustworthy? Potentially, yes. Especially if you used off-the-shelf machines that IBM built in 1920. In any case, that's just a distraction. Just use humans.