4 ms·
It's also very difficult to scale. For one voting site you might need a few people to force it, plus a few more counting the votes. For thousands of sites you n
by danpalmer 8mo ago
It's also very difficult to scale. For one voting site you might need a few people to force it, plus a few more counting the votes. For thousands of sites you need many thousands of people.
Versus e-voting where may conceivably manage to swing the vote with a handful of people.
- Muromec 8mo agoThat's not difficult to scale if you already are a nation-state actor.
- lesuorac 7mo ago> Versus e-voting where may conceivably manage to swing the vote with a handful of people. No the thing you're missing is that the ballots are always electronically counted. Sure, at the very low level they'll manually count each ballot but the sums are then provided to different people electronically who then report the combined total sum. But also a handful of people can just remove registered voters to have the same effect. The fraud is easy to scale though because it if you win local offices you can use that to control state offices which you can then uses to control federal offices.
- peterfirefly 7mo agoThey are counted by hand in Denmark. We used to post the results on physical paper at the voting site afterwards + have them published for the entire country (including a list of the votes at each voting site) in the national papers. If the local results anywhere were different from those published in the papers, people would notice. If they were different in different papers, or in different parts of the country, people would notice. We have, unfortunately, switched to a list on a website instead of in the papers :(