[naasking]

> Yep, you can recount fake paper votes, but how you will distinguish fake votes from real ones?

You already have a log of who showed up to vote. Compare the number of shows S with the number of ballots V which must be <= S due to poorly marked/unreadable ballots. Simple.

Edit: and this all statistically correlates with exit polls. It's very, very hard to fake all three of these in order to rig an election.

[lisivka]

So yes, you have log, you have votes. How to distinguish real votes from fake ones? State can start election again from scratch, when it will find a problem, but people will vote very differently at this next election, because whole story will affect their minds and votes. Brave fakers can raise stakes and win.

[grzm]

It's not necessary for a subsequent vote to have the same outcome as the first. The issue is whether the election is secure and people have trust in the system.

[caf]

Indeed, here is a recent example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate_special_elec...

[lisivka]

So first goal of fakers is to ruin that. It even written as one of main goals in Russian trolls goal books. Find a copy of such book and read it: you will learn a lot.

[grzm]

Once there's no longer trust in the system, you're right, secure voting is no longer a problem.

Which is why it's important to fix this earlier rather than later.

If it's your goal to cast more FUD on the issue, that's your choice. I can't even ask to you be honest about it because that wouldn't be congruent with spreading FUD.

[lisivka]

Just trust your leaders and FUD will not work.