That's not exactly 'more fundamentals'; it's a much shorter, less informative, and more biased piece. The linked article goes far more in-depth, is far more objective, and after reading through the first 5 articles I feel a little bit more edified about the issue.
Now I understand the core beef: that a schema change to this voting software caused all votes to be stored in their relational DB as doubles instead of ints, and a good way for observers to verify that an ordinary election isn't behaving as a weighted one behind the scenes was never added, which makes this voting system insecure and not what a reasonable person would consider "observable".
The article you linked, on the other hand, made me feel patronized, skeptical of the author's central premise, and a little bit uncomfortable.
Now I understand the core beef: that a schema change to this voting software caused all votes to be stored in their relational DB as doubles instead of ints, and a good way for observers to verify that an ordinary election isn't behaving as a weighted one behind the scenes was never added, which makes this voting system insecure and not what a reasonable person would consider "observable".
The article you linked, on the other hand, made me feel patronized, skeptical of the author's central premise, and a little bit uncomfortable.