3 ms·

How about a machine voting system with paper fallback. You as a voter can review the paper protocol from your vote. If there is distrust, the justice system can

How about a machine voting system with paper fallback. You as a voter can review the paper protocol from your vote. If there is distrust, the justice system can review the paper trail as well.

rwmj 7mo ago
I don't understand the reason for electronic voting. The UK manages to tally up paper votes overnight, even from far-flung Scottish islands. Electronic voting is literally solving a problem that nobody has.
- 85392_school 7mo ago
  The UK is the world's 22nd most populated and 78th largest country.
  - rwmj 7mo ago
    UK population density (people/sq km) is 289 and Switzerland's is 228, so not very different. Plus Switzerland is fully connected, there are no remote islands. [1] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by...
  - themafia 7mo ago
    So more populated countries have more potential poll workers to choose from. Isn't this a linear relationship? What does size have to do with anything?
  - mjmas 7mo ago
    Australia also has paper ballots. The area isn't that much of a problem
1718627440 7mo ago
> If there is distrust, the justice system can review the paper trail as well. There is always, so you would just always count the ballots.
themafia 7mo ago
What is the rush to tally the ballots? Do we need an _instant_ count? Isn't that actually a negative attribute as far as security is concerned? The distance between the election and the taking of the office is often months. I just don't understand why electronics need to be involved at all in this system.
- brainwad 7mo ago
  FWIW Swiss elections are counted in at most 6 hours, usually quicker except for big cities. If your system takes longer than that, it's a bad system. Also it's not just elections to offices, but also votes on yes/no propositions, which can take effect more or less immediately.
  - themafia 7mo ago
    > If your system takes longer than that, it's a bad system. Why? > which can take effect more or less immediately. In our jurisdictions they're usually reserved. Courts can be used to challenge laws as unconstitutional. And you typically want a bright line implementation date that everyone can see coming.
    - brainwad 7mo ago
      Because hand-counting of paper ballots, as done in Switzerland (and many other places) is the bare minimum. Any more complicated system that still takes longer is adding complication unnecessarily. An electronic election system should be able to count all the ballots basically instantaneously. In Switzerland the courts have no power to rule laws as unconstitutional - this is a power reserved to the people (who are sovereign), via referendums. So when the people strike down a law at referendum, that takes effect immediately as the voting population is the "final instance". Usually when they vote positively for something, there is still then some implementation period - sometimes quite a lot of it, e.g. there was a vote to reform the tax system passed on Sunday, and it will take effect according the government at the start of _2032_.
atoav 7mo ago
What is the need for it? You want faster results? Not needed, elections don't need to be fast, they need to be trusted. You want to have less humans in the loop to be more efficient? Having humans in the loop is actually a feature not a bug as it distributes the trust on many actors. Paper ballots work just fine if done correctly and most democracies have a long history of knowing how to do them correctly with very high stakes. Electronic (or even online) votes are fine for low stakes stuff, like what the color of that new bridge ought to be, but not to select the fate of a whole nation.

How about a machine voting system with paper fallback. You as a voter can review the paper protocol from your vote. If there is distrust, the justice system can review the paper trail as well.

rwmj 7mo ago

I don't understand the reason for electronic voting. The UK manages to tally up paper votes overnight, even from far-flung Scottish islands. Electronic voting is literally solving a problem that nobody has.

85392_school 7mo ago
The UK is the world's 22nd most populated and 78th largest country.
- rwmj 7mo ago
  UK population density (people/sq km) is 289 and Switzerland's is 228, so not very different. Plus Switzerland is fully connected, there are no remote islands. [1] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by...
- themafia 7mo ago
  So more populated countries have more potential poll workers to choose from. Isn't this a linear relationship? What does size have to do with anything?
- mjmas 7mo ago
  Australia also has paper ballots. The area isn't that much of a problem

1718627440 7mo ago

> If there is distrust, the justice system can review the paper trail as well. There is always, so you would just always count the ballots.

themafia 7mo ago

What is the rush to tally the ballots? Do we need an _instant_ count? Isn't that actually a negative attribute as far as security is concerned? The distance between the election and the taking of the office is often months. I just don't understand why electronics need to be involved at all in this system.

brainwad 7mo ago
FWIW Swiss elections are counted in at most 6 hours, usually quicker except for big cities. If your system takes longer than that, it's a bad system. Also it's not just elections to offices, but also votes on yes/no propositions, which can take effect more or less immediately.
- themafia 7mo ago
  > If your system takes longer than that, it's a bad system. Why? > which can take effect more or less immediately. In our jurisdictions they're usually reserved. Courts can be used to challenge laws as unconstitutional. And you typically want a bright line implementation date that everyone can see coming.
  - brainwad 7mo ago
    Because hand-counting of paper ballots, as done in Switzerland (and many other places) is the bare minimum. Any more complicated system that still takes longer is adding complication unnecessarily. An electronic election system should be able to count all the ballots basically instantaneously. In Switzerland the courts have no power to rule laws as unconstitutional - this is a power reserved to the people (who are sovereign), via referendums. So when the people strike down a law at referendum, that takes effect immediately as the voting population is the "final instance". Usually when they vote positively for something, there is still then some implementation period - sometimes quite a lot of it, e.g. there was a vote to reform the tax system passed on Sunday, and it will take effect according the government at the start of _2032_.

atoav 7mo ago

What is the need for it? You want faster results? Not needed, elections don't need to be fast, they need to be trusted. You want to have less humans in the loop to be more efficient? Having humans in the loop is actually a feature not a bug as it distributes the trust on many actors. Paper ballots work just fine if done correctly and most democracies have a long history of knowing how to do them correctly with very high stakes. Electronic (or even online) votes are fine for low stakes stuff, like what the color of that new bridge ought to be, but not to select the fate of a whole nation.