3 ms·

stretchwithme addresses that in the third (and subsequent) sentences of his comment. I know that's a lot to read, but still. They were in fact describing a vote

• acdha 13y ago
  He appeared to specifically exclude that possibility by requiring a machine to read it. This entire discussion is predicated on a mistaken assumption that we have significant levels of fraud – often asserted but never convincingly supported – or that electronic systems reduce those odds. We'd be much better off sticking with a simple optical system which can be reviewed and scored by hand and providing a computer-assisted system to help those who have difficulty to fill in that ballot. As a plus, this system is really cheap and easy to scale rather than requiring a bunch of expensive computers and support staff for an infrequent event.
• stretchwithme 13y ago
  acdha, I proposed machines and apps voters could use to confirm their ballot was punched correctly, to make sure the first machine isn't compromised. These apps could be made by anybody with access to the details of the particular ballot. In other words, those in control of voting can't control a myriad of independent app developers. People could also do what they did before: put their ballot into the old voting device and look at the holes themselves. The actual counting of the ballots could be done however it was done before.