4 ms·

The same way you verify that manually counted votes haven't been miscounted, discarded or altered. You allow witnesses. Independent examiners will be permitted

The same way you verify that manually counted votes haven't been miscounted, discarded or altered. You allow witnesses. Independent examiners will be permitted to verify the source code is actually used as-built, that it has a signature attached and that every machine that is built has the signature checked. Sure, it's not perfect but neither is manual counting (plenty of countries are proving that right now). The question is, I guess, does a software-based system provide notable advantages over manual counting other than cost and speed of a result?

sb057 4y ago
Are you going to have experts examine the hardware of 1 million+ voting machines in the United States? And are all of those witnesses going to be infallible and trusted by the public?
- mavhc 4y ago
  Don't need to test them all, just enough to probabilistically catch anyone hacking them.
  - Vecr 4y ago
    Yes you would need to test them all, I assume there are school board elections and things like that with only one or a few machines. Not everything is the presidential election.
bmacho 4y ago
A witness can ensure that envelops go in a box, and then they get them out from it. Box are verifiable. But how could a witness verify a software and a voting machine?