6 ms·

Yes, but then all that's needed to attack the voting system is to trot out your own experts that voice disagreement. Without the means to assess the system for

Yes, but then all that's needed to attack the voting system is to trot out your own experts that voice disagreement. Without the means to assess the system for themselves, voters will lose trust in it. Especially in this day and age, when trust in institutions and expects in general is extremely low. (Heck, this attack already works to some extent with the current, extremely transparent system of ballots)

eru 2y ago
> (Heck, this attack already works to some extent with the current, extremely transparent system of ballots) Exactly, so the rest of your criticism isn't nearly as strong, if it applies to all means of voting.
- atoav 2y ago
  Huh? That is not how this works. For a high stakes election I would take the most trustworthy system. So give me an argument why I should invest money into building a less trustworthy one? Because it I get results faster? I don't care about speed, high stakes elections are rare enough for that not to matter. Because it is more efficient? I don't care about efficiency, I want the result to be accurate and the process to be understandable by the stupid bloke in the pub with whom I have to discuss the result. There is literally no reason why this should be replaced by a digital system other than it makes us needs feel special.
  - baobabKoodaa 2y ago
    Paper ballot voting systems are generally more secure than electronic voting systems, but things are not black and white. There are differences amongst different paper ballot voting systems. There are also voting systems which combine both electronic and paper features. For example, a purely paper voting system can be trivially made more secure by adding electronic machines to prevent voters from accidentally spoiling ballots.
  - eru 2y ago
    The argument you make here might be right, but it's beside the point I was making. My point was narrowly that most of the argument made in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41156898 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41156898 applies to paper voting as well. For what it's worth, I prefer paper ballots, but I don't think that makes all arguments for them automatically valid.
rstuart4133 2y ago
> Yes, but then all that's needed to attack the voting system is to trot out your own experts that voice disagreement. Which is precisely what Trump did in 2020. I doubt people made up their minds on whether the 2020 vote was sound based on the mechanics of how the votes were counted. The counting procedure with it's interlocking checks is rather complex, and differs between states. They made up their minds based on what they trusted more - the Trump version of the facts or the testimonies of the people counting the votes and those administering it. It will be exactly the same with computerised voting. Ideally the software will be open source with reproducible builds. Just as with the present voting system most won't be able the check the actual mechanics themselves, but they likely know someone who knows someone who knows someone who can. By the by, it wasn't done that way with computerised voting and probably still isn't in many places. I vaguely recall the story of a voting machine breaking down, a technician waving his magic wand over it after voting had closed, and a whole pile of votes fell out. It made the people in charge of the voting process distinctly uncomfortable.
- airtonix 2y ago
  [dead]

eru 2y ago

> (Heck, this attack already works to some extent with the current, extremely transparent system of ballots) Exactly, so the rest of your criticism isn't nearly as strong, if it applies to all means of voting.

atoav 2y ago
Huh? That is not how this works. For a high stakes election I would take the most trustworthy system. So give me an argument why I should invest money into building a less trustworthy one? Because it I get results faster? I don't care about speed, high stakes elections are rare enough for that not to matter. Because it is more efficient? I don't care about efficiency, I want the result to be accurate and the process to be understandable by the stupid bloke in the pub with whom I have to discuss the result. There is literally no reason why this should be replaced by a digital system other than it makes us needs feel special.
- baobabKoodaa 2y ago
  Paper ballot voting systems are generally more secure than electronic voting systems, but things are not black and white. There are differences amongst different paper ballot voting systems. There are also voting systems which combine both electronic and paper features. For example, a purely paper voting system can be trivially made more secure by adding electronic machines to prevent voters from accidentally spoiling ballots.
- eru 2y ago
  The argument you make here might be right, but it's beside the point I was making. My point was narrowly that most of the argument made in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41156898 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41156898 applies to paper voting as well. For what it's worth, I prefer paper ballots, but I don't think that makes all arguments for them automatically valid.

rstuart4133 2y ago

> Yes, but then all that's needed to attack the voting system is to trot out your own experts that voice disagreement. Which is precisely what Trump did in 2020. I doubt people made up their minds on whether the 2020 vote was sound based on the mechanics of how the votes were counted. The counting procedure with it's interlocking checks is rather complex, and differs between states. They made up their minds based on what they trusted more - the Trump version of the facts or the testimonies of the people counting the votes and those administering it. It will be exactly the same with computerised voting. Ideally the software will be open source with reproducible builds. Just as with the present voting system most won't be able the check the actual mechanics themselves, but they likely know someone who knows someone who knows someone who can. By the by, it wasn't done that way with computerised voting and probably still isn't in many places. I vaguely recall the story of a voting machine breaking down, a technician waving his magic wand over it after voting had closed, and a whole pile of votes fell out. It made the people in charge of the voting process distinctly uncomfortable.

airtonix 2y ago
[dead]