[seer]

When electronic voting was introduced in my country - Bulgaria, immediately the results were quite different than previous elections - with as much as 10% diff.

It was largely attributed to the fact that incumbents did not know how to “hack” this new system (yet?) but were pretty adept at cost effectively manipulating paper ballots.

For example they would infiltrate remote areas with little to no observers and stuff the ballot boxes.

Once the new electronic voting system was introduced, suddenly they didn’t know what to do, so the votes ended up more representative, e.g. much closer to projected numbers than before.

Now the system is “electronic counting + paper ballot” So you still go to a voting place, there are still independent/multi party observers, there are still paper ballots available for recount, but you have cryptography on top of it to prevent traditional tempering.

[rodrigodlu]

You just pictured our 80s and early 90s here :)

We also tested a dual system with printers (early 00s i think?) but they were found to be unreliable and challenging due to the scale needed. There was also not a serious discussion on what to do if there's differences between the two.

Also probably more funds to research a safe way to redo all public electronic signatures (resign the candidates database and the operating system) to quickly launch a second, third round if we need to vote again due to differences.

How do you do in your case?