3 ms·
Human marked, human and machine readable both is good practice. Risk limiting audits after elections is good practice. CA, WA and CO at least do all this. What
by bediger4000 1y ago
Human marked, human and machine readable both is good practice. Risk limiting audits after elections is good practice. CA, WA and CO at least do all this.
What does in person (with an ID) add to election security? That practice most certainly restricts voting unless there's a holiday for election day.
What keeps in person voting from being manipulated less than other good practice elections?
Why did in person voting become a big issue only just before and after 2020 election?
Why didn't anybody pay attention to what some states did after 2000 election?
- jeltz 1y agoIn person voting on election day makes replacing people's votes much harder. You only need to compromise a handful of people who guard the ballots othewise. The ratio of votes per staff guarding is much lower on election day in at least my country. Compromising enough people on election day would be ridiculous in my country.
- nobody9999 1y ago>Compromising enough people on election day would be ridiculous in my country. Given that there are >3500 elections (one for each county) in the US every cycle, and all the competing eyes on the polls, counts and storage of ballots in each of those 3500+ counties makes compromising enough people to affect an election incredibly unlikely.