| > To say that paper doesn't have these problems shows a lack of understanding or a willful intent to mislead. Of course using paper doesn't magically solve away your problems. The point is that paper-based systems without these problems do exist in the world and they've been successfully used for decades. You just have to copy the successful ones. Or, put another way, if your government is too incompetent to run paper-based ballots, using electronic system won't make them suddenly competent either. > There are weaknesses with transport or tampering the same as any mechanical recording or electronic recording. The really really really nice thing about paper is that the required size of the attack gets proportionally large as stakes get higher. If you try really hard, you can probably sneak a few votes and change one of the twenty town council members, but does anyone care? On the other hand, to hack a presidential election you will have to exchange at least a thousand boxes or so. With a thousand co-conspirators. While everyone is watching. ...And if you're worried about organized gangs replacing a thousand ballot boxes on your election day, you have more problems than voting systems. > What's the point of half the process being paper? That it works. Technology is not meant to be cool; it's meant to work. |
The US certainly does. Should we throw up our hands and call it a non-issue? I don't think so.