3 ms·
Seriously. The amount of suspicion for computerized scanning and counting systems here is surprising. I realize state of the art, modern, high-performance syst
by ethbr1 2y ago
Seriously. The amount of suspicion for computerized scanning and counting systems here is surprising.
I realize state of the art, modern, high-performance systems are incredibly complex... but that doesn't mean all systems have to be incredibly complex.
Simple computerized systems are incredibly accurate and reliable, easily moreso than humans.
And critically, it's feasible to perform attestation on electronic systems: something that's completely impossible with humans. You have no idea if Joe or Sally are randomly slipping in a few miscounts (or the people auditing them, or the people auditing them). If you're careful, you can be sure that only specific code is executing.
I'd be fascinated to get a breakdown of trust in computerized voting systems, from programming professionals, by programming speciality. I have a suspicion you'd get different answers from firmware/RT folks vs js front-end, to pick a couple of examples.
- aesh2Xa1 2y ago> Simple computerized systems are incredibly accurate and reliable, easily moreso than humans. Such systems are better enough that businesses handling cash use them to count paper money. Next to voting, or perhaps ahead of it, people surely value reliable accuracy in their money. So why not ballots?
- vacuity 2y agoBecause the current implementations for ballots don't feel up to snuff, and I at least don't trust profit-driven companies to make "simple computerized systems" that are auditable and whatnot. Get a good solution in place for many election cycles and then we can all be happy.