3 ms·

You're missing their point. It's not that it cannot be done. It's that even if you do it perfectly (whatever that means), you cannot expect people to trust it.

You're missing their point. It's not that it cannot be done. It's that even if you do it perfectly (whatever that means), you cannot expect people to trust it. People trust papers in envelopes in transparent boxes in classrooms all around the country because it's intrinsically trustable, decentralised, easy to understand, extremely hard to manipulate at a global scale, etc. People do not trust an electronic system. You can explain to them that it's safe until you're red in the face, it's not the point. Democracy works if people have sufficient trust in it.

EGreg 2y ago
No, I'm not missing their point. The same exact things could have been said about the Internet. Their points 1, 2, 3 applied to the Internet. And even if the Internet could be implemented perfectly (whatever that means), you cannot expect people to trust it. And yet they do. People trust the Internet far more than they trust regular mail, for instance. But that wasn't always the case. It just kept getting better and adding error correction until it became far more reliable than manual systems. People come to trust technology when it starts performing well. The same can be said about self-driving cars etc. etc.