Internet voting is insecure and should not be used in public elections

I signed my ballot poorly last year because I had nothing hard to put behind it when signing. It was compared to previous years and rejected. At a minimum you need to know what someones signature looks like, which reduces the possible scale of this attack from 'small' to 'vanishingly small'. You can also get rich stealing peanuts from squirrels, if you can find enough squirrels. Good luck with that.

> Want paper vote? That's racism. Want counting in a day? That's xenophobia. Want to limit certain time window for counting? That's definitely racism.

This characterization is reductive and basically a straw-man.

The principle underlying opposition to "counting in one day" is basically that every vote that is correctly placed in time should be counted, and as many people as possible should have access to voting. Mail-in voting, for example, has been shown to increase voter turnout by making voting more convenient, but you have the question of what to do with ballots that are received late. There are pretty good arguments for counting all mail-in ballots that are postmarked before the election, and I don't think "xenophobia" is among them.

In America specifically, all decisions relating to access to voting are considered against a backdrop of our widespread and systematic attempt to restrict voting. A modern example of this is related to wide disparity in the number of polling places, and therefore the amount of time required to vote, in "urban" regions of some southern states as compared to rural regions.

I have never heard of a racism-based opposition to paper ballots. I think you just made that up.

>Malware on the voter’s phone (or computer) can transmit different votes than the voter selected and reviewed. Voters use a variety of devices (Android, iPhone, Windows, Mac) which are constantly being attacked by malware.

Yeah see this is where I thought this was going.

Phones can be insecure, but in aggregate they are secure enough for literally every other component of life to be conducted on them.

>Malware (or insiders) at the server can change votes. Internet servers are constantly being hacked from all over the world, often with serious results.

Again, great point. Accepting this point will the government erase all the private identifiable data it has collected on me from its systems? Probably not, because they have made a cost/benefit analysis that suggests the risk is middling compared to the reward.

>Malware at the county election office can change votes (in those systems where the internet ballots are printed in the county office for scanning). County election computers are not more secure than other government or commercial servers, which are regularly hacked with disastrous results.

This seems like a weird seppo thing.

Currently the risk of an election being seen as fraudulent is high, and the reward of online voting is low.

But we dont have to conceptualise the modern boring election when we look at online elections. We can look at alternative models, closer to real time use and other gains that tip things back in its favor.

Actually the biggest issue I see with online democracy is apathy and minimum quorum sizes.

> If that's gaming the system, what even is the point of voting?

Good point. Let's just get rid of voting and go back to "divine right of kings", at least until they develop a cure for human gullibility.

> Want to limit certain time window for counting?

Why would you want that?

Surely what you want is to enable everyone to vote, and then to count all the votes?

In the UK where I have most experience of this stuff, there are many, many small polling stations, and usually you just walk right in and vote without queueing. The longest I ever had to wait to vote was about 30 minutes. Votes are counted locally and results usually declared within a handful of hours. Some take longer due to recounts etc if the tally is very close in a certain area, but the whole thing is pretty uncontroversial and pretty low-effort.

Here in Australia, voting is compulsory, it's always on a Saturday, and there's usually a charity sausage-sizzle at the polling place, it's sorta fun. And again, AFAICT (I'm not a citizen yet) the infrastructure is over-provisioned so people aren't waiting around forever.

From what I hear about the US, in some places voting can take hours, it seems like the number of polling places is deliberately limited to make it hard for people to vote, and you have those weird/horrible rules cropping up like it being illegal to hand out water to people in line, which seems purely designed to discourage electoral participation. And then you have all these calls to stop the count after a certain time etc.

It's deeply weird from an outside perspective. If counts are taking too long, if people are having trouble voting, provision more... but of course it seems clear that there are motives for underprovisioning, because one or other group thinks it will benefit them.