3 ms·
> paper ballots that are securely physically transported to a central location (all of them) and counted by people surrounded by observers (all in one sitting).
by 9dev 2y ago
> paper ballots that are securely physically transported to a central location (all of them) and counted by people surrounded by observers (all in one sitting).
That is unnecessary complexity already. Ballots can be counted directly in the voting stations, by the local citizens. If you want to check your vote is counted correctly, stay to witness the counting. After the results have been counted, they can be communicated to the city hall via phone, so everyone in the room can hear it.
- nihzm 2y agoThis would be more realistic, and everyone can still understand it, so it is another good example. The point was to provide an extreme system to highlight the value of simplicity in the dynamics of trust in a voting system.
- 9dev 2y agoNo no, I got that. I wanted to highlight that part of the paper voting system in support of your argument, as I think democracy is a people business, and the paper system works by involving people at every step. If citizens are responsible for counting the ballots and watching the process, they also share responsibility for the trustworthiness of the system. By involving as many of them as possible, large-scale manipulation becomes nigh impossible.