41–50 of 292 posts
Public trust cannot exist if the voting system requires *any* expertise. Voting systems should be idiot-proof. If you cannot explain how voting system is manipulation-proof to a 7 year old, your voting system is untrustworthy. This means anything more complex than a pen or a stamp on an approved paper is too complex.
Is paper considered open source?
These kinds of comments always annoy me a bit. It's 2025. 155,238,302 people voted in the most recent US presidential election. It is entirely silly that we expect people to manually count that many ballots in this day and age. And count them without errors! (And yes, we can make those paper ballots machine-readable, but you still need software to count them.) Yes, I know: before computers and other mechanical system…
Other countries do paper ballots and manual counting without issues. The US isn't that special or unusual.
Just use paper, count by hand, and abolish mail-in ballots and you should be fine.
No. Public trust demands no software or programmable hardware in the election process. • Why Electronic Voting is a BAD Idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI > • Why Electronic Voting Is Still A Bad Idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs >
Ironically, that results in worse count accuracy. Humans are actually quite bad at hand-tallying hundreds of millions of datapoints. Our eyes go glassy but we press on anyway. Machines are very good at doing that kind of tedious labor accurately. Whether human beings will put more trust in a system that we know will be wrong , but it's wrong for comfortable meat reasons, over a system that might be compromised but wi…
The problem with the accuracy assumption of electronic voting is that a) its all coded without errors and b) someone hasn't deliberately but code into manipulate the vote numbers.
I would be fine if they had at least the same level of scrutiny as slot machines --- can we turn Citizens United around and argue that since dollars can be used to buy speech which influences votes, voting machine should have the same level of scrutiny/verification/auditing which applies to finance?
Public trust cannot exist if the voting system requires *any* expertise. Voting systems should be idiot-proof. If you cannot explain how voting system is manipulation-proof to a 7 year old, your voting system is untrustworthy. This means anything more complex than a pen or a stamp on an approved paper is too complex.
Who gives a shit man, it's not going to be the end of the world or even substantially change things no matter what methods we choose. You might as well choose the ones that make things easier on people. Crazy that the world wide information network that we've built and defines our current age in history is treated like some horrible evil. It's not, it will be fine. But with vote by website now every home, school, and library in the country becomes a polling place.
There is no amount of transparency that will achieve the mythical "public trust" that's being envisioned. Our current voting system is all paper right now, actual voting fraud—meaning literal ballot stuffing is nonexistent and still people buy into conspiracy theories. Voting manipulation happens in broad daylight at the systems level and is done by carefully restricting access. Expand access and the problem vanishes.
Public trust cannot exist if the voting system requires *any* expertise. Voting systems should be idiot-proof. If you cannot explain how voting system is manipulation-proof to a 7 year old, your voting system is untrustworthy. This means anything more complex than a pen or a stamp on an approved paper is too complex.
I would be fine if they had at least the same level of scrutiny as slot machines --- can we turn Citizens United around and argue that since dollars can be used to buy speech which influences votes, voting machine should have the same level of scrutiny/verification/auditing which applies to finance?
The software doesn't matter that much. If you want to use voting machines, you need to create a paper trail with them that can be audited. Auditing the software isn't enough if you can't reliably verify that this is actually what's running on the machines, or if the machines weren't otherwise tampered with in some way.