11–20 of 134 posts
There really isn't a good case to be made for electronic voting at all. Paper is much simpler, more reliable and has none of these issues.
Parent could be talking about the scanning and tabulation. In theory, there shouldn’t be anything problematic with “you vote on paper, and then slide it through a scanner, from whence it goes into a sealed bin”. Then you can still hand-recount.
There really isn't a good case to be made for electronic voting at all. Paper is much simpler, more reliable and has none of these issues.
Parent could be talking about the scanning and tabulation. In theory, there shouldn’t be anything problematic with “you vote on paper, and then slide it through a scanner, from whence it goes into a sealed bin”. Then you can still hand-recount.
Because paper is simpler and better. It works just fine in other countries.
> All software has bugs.
So why do you want software? What do you think the advantages are?
To answer OP's question, I personally have no idea but think it should be. Much of our scientific work is open sourced (e.g. codes from national labs, NASA, etc). But I think a lot of people don't understand what open source is or means. They think you can't have open sourced software and still privately own it. We still honestly haven't figured out how to deal with this adequately in the law (there's a post on the front page about FB taking their OS project, and these posts happen at least once a month). People don't demand it because frankly people aren't very tech literate.
Everyone here is talking about paper ballots. Good, but this ignores OP's question. Most voting machines, even if they have paper trails, have some software in them. Just saying "paper ballots" doesn't address the issue. To answer OP's question, I personally have no idea but think it should be. Much of our scientific work is open sourced (e.g. codes from national labs, NASA, etc). But I think a lot of people don't un…
The solution to a problem that should not be solved with software is not to have different software.
There really isn't a good case to be made for electronic voting at all. Paper is much simpler, more reliable and has none of these issues.
Parent could be talking about the scanning and tabulation. In theory, there shouldn’t be anything problematic with “you vote on paper, and then slide it through a scanner, from whence it goes into a sealed bin”. Then you can still hand-recount.
And you still have other issues like radio waves being emitted based on the computers' calculations, which (in theory) makes it possible to determine what you've voted. Researchers in The Netherlands proved that it was possible with the machines there, which is why we went back to pencil and paper.
Everyone here is talking about paper ballots. Good, but this ignores OP's question. Most voting machines, even if they have paper trails, have some software in them. Just saying "paper ballots" doesn't address the issue. To answer OP's question, I personally have no idea but think it should be. Much of our scientific work is open sourced (e.g. codes from national labs, NASA, etc). But I think a lot of people don't un…
The answer to OP's question is... why have software at all? Why not just paper? Why do you want a 'voting machine' at all? What's wrong with paper? The solution to a problem that should not be solved with software is not to have different software.