Nope. It’ll never work. Because when I walk into the voting booth, how do I KNOW FOR A VERIFIABLE FACT that this machine here in the booth with me is running the published software?
Can you also verify that the vote it presents to be counted? Can you verify the counting? For every way to verify computerized voting, there are a dozen ways to compromise it.
Hand count consists of 1 delegate from each party tallying every single ballet. If they disagree on a ballet (this is less common if a computer prints the ballet), an official agreed on by both parties determines what the voter intended.
The voting system is quite good by international standards, the fix in American “democracy” comes in way before all of this.
And that is a non-solvable problem.
We just need to make sure the voting machines are not racist. Solvable, if we’re starting from scratch.
The phrase “voting machine” is also a problem.
Only when accompanied by “paperless” or “closed source”
Nope. It’ll never work. Because when I walk into the voting booth, how do I KNOW FOR A VERIFIABLE FACT that this machine here in the booth with me is running the published software?
Computerized voting will always be a mistake.
The machine produces a physical paper record you can read, it doesn’t matter what software it’s running if you can verify your vote is accurate.
Can you also verify that the vote it presents to be counted? Can you verify the counting? For every way to verify computerized voting, there are a dozen ways to compromise it.
They do hand-counts when there’s an irregularity.
Hand count consists of 1 delegate from each party tallying every single ballet. If they disagree on a ballet (this is less common if a computer prints the ballet), an official agreed on by both parties determines what the voter intended.
The voting system is quite good by international standards, the fix in American “democracy” comes in way before all of this.
disagrees in brazilian voting machine noises