4 ms·

> I agree that paper ballots are better, You didn't define how paper ballots are better. Given that many electronic systems print paper ballots, I'm not sure

> I agree that paper ballots are better, You didn't define how paper ballots are better. Given that many electronic systems print paper ballots, I'm not sure how they could be said to be universally better. Electronic ballots can be much better than paper in two ways. Firstly, they are faster to count. I'm not sure why that matters, but it's true and seem people seem to think knowing the outcome quickly is important. Far more importantly to me: they are easier to use. In Australia we have compulsory voting. A lot of attention is paid to how many votes are invalid. It currently runs at 5%, but ranges up to 10% in areas with lower education levels or non-English speaking. Voting machines can tell you verify if the vote is valid, help you if they aren't, provide information from the candidates if you want to know more. One the downside, a poorly designed voting machine can be far less secure than out current paper system. Sadly, I don't think I've seen proprietary voting voting machine that didn't have significant design flaws. Making the situation worse is the voting machine companies like to keep their flaws well hidden (flaws aren't good for sales). In Australia, we've had examples of the Australian Electoral Commission perusing academic researchers in the courts for revealing flaws. [0] Mandating open source mandate is a solution to that. https://www.unimelb.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/november/flaws-exposed-in-ivote-system-used-in-nsw-election-report https://www.unimelb.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/november/flaws...

like_any_other 1y ago
Pharaos had to run a footrace to prove they were still fit to rule, meanwhile we sacrifice the security of our voting system so that the most feeble and feeble-minded among us can vote. In some countries even the most disinterested and uninformed in politics are legally compelled to vote. Then we complain how foolishly the public votes, and how easily they are swayed. What a farce.
- rstuart4133 1y ago
  > In some countries even the most disinterested and uninformed in politics are legally compelled to vote. It depends on what you are after I guess, but it's almost certain that if the USA has compulsory voting Trump would not have won the last election. The people who don't usually vote; the feeble-minded as you call them, pull the vote toward the centre. Whatever Trump may be, he doesn't represent the centre of politics. If the current USA polls are any indication, most USA voters are now wistfully thinking what might have been, had a system that forced those feeble-minded voters to get off their arses and vote been in place back in November.
- Terr_ 1y ago
  Hardly: History shows the repeated failure of the alternative, where only the "qualified" may vote. Terrible people just corrupt the qualification-mechanism instead. That evil tactic tends to be more-effective and longer-lasting than trying to appeal to the lazy-stupid vote.
  - like_any_other 1y ago
    > only the "qualified" may vote You think this is a fair characterization of what I wrote? That it not being worth sacrificing the security of a voting system to get the most disinterested and incapable to vote, is equivalent to some unstated "qualification" test?

like_any_other 1y ago

Pharaos had to run a footrace to prove they were still fit to rule, meanwhile we sacrifice the security of our voting system so that the most feeble and feeble-minded among us can vote. In some countries even the most disinterested and uninformed in politics are legally compelled to vote. Then we complain how foolishly the public votes, and how easily they are swayed. What a farce.

rstuart4133 1y ago
> In some countries even the most disinterested and uninformed in politics are legally compelled to vote. It depends on what you are after I guess, but it's almost certain that if the USA has compulsory voting Trump would not have won the last election. The people who don't usually vote; the feeble-minded as you call them, pull the vote toward the centre. Whatever Trump may be, he doesn't represent the centre of politics. If the current USA polls are any indication, most USA voters are now wistfully thinking what might have been, had a system that forced those feeble-minded voters to get off their arses and vote been in place back in November.
Terr_ 1y ago
Hardly: History shows the repeated failure of the alternative, where only the "qualified" may vote. Terrible people just corrupt the qualification-mechanism instead. That evil tactic tends to be more-effective and longer-lasting than trying to appeal to the lazy-stupid vote.
- like_any_other 1y ago
  > only the "qualified" may vote You think this is a fair characterization of what I wrote? That it not being worth sacrificing the security of a voting system to get the most disinterested and incapable to vote, is equivalent to some unstated "qualification" test?