The trouble is that the extraordinary contingent failings of voting machines can lead people to think that the right course of action is to build more secure, better regulated voting machines - whereas the only secure way forward we know of is paper votes (potentially machine-counted and *maybe* even machine-generated, but still, paper votes)
I totally agree - machines might be able to help provide the result quicker, but there should be random external auditing of the machines used or a polling stations results, and a printed paper record to post into the traditional ballot box to allow manual recounts and comparison in case of any doubts or a close run election.
Also, there needs to be a well defined support network in case individuals have any complaints, or polling stations experience problems.
Personally, despite being a geek, I feel happy sticking to the existing paper system overall.
Personally, because of being a geek and in particular a security and cryptography geek, I feel much happier sticking to a paper system.
I'd prefer to move to machine-counted optical-scan ballots though, because I favour more sophisticated voting systems (eg Condorcet) that get very painful to count by hand.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Now I'm having one of those moments where I want to go and live on a small island somewhere.
no subject
no subject
Also, there needs to be a well defined support network in case individuals have any complaints, or polling stations experience problems.
Personally, despite being a geek, I feel happy sticking to the existing paper system overall.
no subject
I'd prefer to move to machine-counted optical-scan ballots though, because I favour more sophisticated voting systems (eg Condorcet) that get very painful to count by hand.
no subject
Funny, not work safe