[TooBrokeToBeg]

> Are computerized elections understandable to laypersons?

What do you mean "No"? The ubiquity of cell phones alone makes it self-evident. What YOU mean is not described by your assertion.

> Worse; even if the election was tallied faithfully by a computerized system, a demagogic candidate can whip up fervour and call the election into question.

That's not worse. That's part of the path to acceptance.

> The paper ballot industry doesn't exist.

Tell that to the Lottery machine makers and ticket manufacturers. It's a much stronger lobby than the "e-voting" block (if you can even cobble together such an alliance).

[3pt14159]

> What YOU mean is not described by your assertion.

I've ran a paper election for a federal race here in Canada. Anyone with the ability to form a complete sentence could understand the security of our election. We're talking 2 standard deviations below median or worse here.

The number of people that can understand the security of an electronic voting system is vanishingly small. The only security mechanisms that make the election trustable are the ones that are analogous to paper elections:

On premise ballot counts by humans with public observers and physical artifacts retained by receiving officers and other poll workers.

Come tell me how a machine with a touch screen is as understandable to someone that can't even explain how electricity works, much less hashing algorithms or compilers.

> That's not worse. That's part of the path to acceptance.

It is worse that a fair election is distrusted than it is for us to be unsure of the veracity of an election yet proceed as if it were honest despite misgivings. The subversion of truth is an anathema to our democratic process. Our social fabric depends on collective reasoning operating on shared understanding. Minds operate by cohering senses into understanding and understanding into action. Discordancy is doubt's inferior. Under stress it trades quiet, humble investigation for paroxysmal rage.

> Tell that to the Lottery machine makers and ticket manufacturers.

These are not the people that manufactured our paper ballots and they never were.

> if you can even cobble together such an alliance

A lobbyist requires incentive, not alliance.

[nxc18]

That's nonsense.

Having a cellphone != understanding the technology and how it works. People don't get this stuff, and something as fundamental as your civil liberties should not be predicated on a black box no one person can understand.

Re: ballot lobby:

If there's any paper ballot lobby it's HP - when I've voted it was on ballots printed by a traditional office printer/Xerox.

You don't need bizarre forms and crank levers to make a ballot, just a piece of paper and a marking device.

[TooBrokeToBeg]

> Having a cellphone != understanding the technology and how it works

That wasn't the assertion made, nor related directly to the assertion I responded to. Having an understanding of "how it works" is a weak way of couching a ton of assumptions without explaining what you mean. There's no point in trying to argue about what's in your head.

The statement I take issue with is:

> Are computerized elections understandable to laypersons?

Yes. How they work at a cursory level of practical operation and effect, is less sophisticated than any cellphone since flip-phones.