5 ms·
Stop me if you heard it before, but paper ballot with automatic counting machine is the way to go. You still get real time update, and you have a physical ball
by yongjik 1y ago
Stop me if you heard it before, but paper ballot with automatic counting machine is the way to go. You still get real time update, and you have a physical ballot box that's constantly under watch of volunteers from multiple parties. And if there's any dispute (there will be disputes) you can simply bring out the boxes and count again.
It's a simple, cost-effective system which is impossible to hack. Electronic voting offers no advantage over this.
- philips 1y agoAnd how would you feel if those counting machines were closed source?
- yongjik 1y agoHow do you feel that the paper bill counter in your bank is closed source? It does not matter because it's trivial to verify. The counter says "here is a pack of one hundred ballots for candidate A," and if you're in doubt, you just count them again. While representatives from candidate A's and B's team are watching.
- philips 1y agoThe difference is that I know the sum ahead of time and can object in the moment at the bank. A vote recount and/or judicially called audit can take months to resolve. This can lead to a loss in confidence in the outcome and for political shenanigans (e.g. Bush v. Gore). I feel far more confident in a system where the software is open source because it increases trust for free. As a citizen having the software be open source is only upside to me.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- raincole 1y agoEven if it's open sourced, how do you know the machine actually runs the same code as you see on Github (or wherever the repo is hosted)? Verifying that requires more expertise than verifying the physical ballots themselves.
- ndiddy 1y agoDid you look at the link at all? That's what this company sells. They make ballot marking devices that print your vote on a ballot paper, then a separate ballot box that counts the votes by scanning the ballot papers.