I didn't really find it funny. Preachy, kind of. So how much harder is it to fake up a bunch of paper ballots and pull a switcharoo than it is to hack voting machines?
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Preachy is fine. We NEED to care about this sort of stuff.
Considering how paper trails work, its much harder to fake up a bunch of ballots and get them counted then it is for someone to hack these machines.
IP: Logged |
What isn't that hard with paper ballots, is "vote-stealing" (one of the techniques that is also a problem with ballots). In this case, you don't fake ballots, you simply make sure that some get lost in a district that favors your opponent. Or casting votes illegally - a timeless strategy.
Although, the current safeguards in place for paper ballots work for the most part.
As I said in another thread, the engineers who designed the Diebold systems should be fired. This is not secure. It is not safe. The current methods in place say that you are supposed to throw out votes if the safety seals have been tampered with. But that is an exact method by which a voter could get a bunch of ballots tossed out (as described in the paper ballot scenario above).
For a long time, I dismissed concerns about electronic voting because I imagined the system as I would have designed it.