[pabl0rg]

Apps could be a valuable tool if we were willing to really change how we vote: put candidates in order of preference. Doing that on paper is not intuitive. The problem is, established politicians and politicos know and prefer the complex game that they know: one vote + electoral college.

[Juliate]

The issue is that, if one cannot reasonably trust a voting process, the vote is null in effect.

Humans cannot trust what they cannot understand and cannot verify.

A paper-based voting procedure, and counting procedure provide these guarantees: understanding and verification, through real-time, peer-based counting & review.

Any other automatic system cannot bring, at this point, the same guarantees, where you have to trust: 1) the people/system that built the system, 2) the process they used that ensures against any wrong-doing.

It is low-tech. And that's a good thing. No high-tech alternative provides the same value & the same guarantees at the same time.

[gumby]

I don’t know how “non intuitive “ it is, Mate — Australia’s been doing it for over a century.

[madeofpalk]

It's not?

Putting numbers 1-5 in boxes isn't intuitive?

[ben_w]

You’d be surprised. The UK had a referendum on this in 2011, where the scheme was rejected without controversy, and the “no” argument I remember from the time was that this is too complicated: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternat...

And yes, I am aware this system is already used in many places.

[thomk]

No, unfortunately not. You will get people who will put all 1s or a 6 here and there.

[madeofpalk]

Australia manages to do it... Hell, not saying its great, but in the last election you could vote 1-6 "above the line", or IIRC 1-105 below the line https://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vote/practice/practice-...

[hadrien01]

Ranked choice voting is already used by multiple countries with no problem

[BlueTemplar]

Personal smartphones running iOS/Android are such a huge security risk that I don't see this happening...