The Voting Machines Need to Go

 

The voting machines America is currently using need to go.  They breed mistrust, and there’s a reason for that: They are not trustworthy. They are also inherently undemocratic.

No, I’m not talking about 2020–well, not as such.  I’m talking about all the past elections since we started using these machines, as well as all the future ones until we come to our senses.

These Machines Are Antithetical to Democracy

YARN | You wouldn't understand. It's a secret. | The Office (2005) - S04E04 Dunder Mifflin Infinity (Part 2) | Video gifs by quotes | 8a64b9d5 | 紗

Let’s do the second problem first.  Here’s a question that pretty much answers itself:

Can a system be democratic if the people are not permitted to know how their votes are counted?

It’s not a democratic system unless the people have freedom to vote and have some understanding of how their votes are counted. So why are we using machines that have secret coding to count the votes?  That’s one reason why the voting machines need to go: Their coding is kept secret. Get rid of those machines, and replace them with paper and pen, or with machines that use open-source software.

A related question also pretty much answers itself:

Can a system be democratic if the people are not even capable of knowing how their votes are counted?

Again, it’s not a democratic system unless the people have freedom to vote and have some understanding of how their votes are counted. Under the current system, only people with years of training in just the right areas of computer science are even capable of understanding how votes are counted.  So why are we using machines that use fractions to count votes, instead of just simple arithmetic?

And why are we using machines that condemn us to ignorance about how a vote-count is going until the software is updated?  Why are we using machines that guarantee an election cannot be run smoothly unless election workers are properly trained in the new technology?  These aren’t online Trumpy conspiracy theories, mind you–this is the New York Times!

And why are we using machines where you can’t know how your vote is being counted–or understand much of what anyone even says about how they’re counted–without understanding what a router is, whether it’s connected, what a LAN is, what a firewall is, what a batch is, what packets are, what packet captures are, what an IP address is, what logic and accuracy tests are, what a client is, what a server is, what domain controls are, what computer logs are, and how to read those logs?

April 2022: Scooby-Doo - MorphicThat’s another reason why the voting machines need to go: Their workings are an inherent mystery to the voters.

Get rid of those machines, and replace them with paper and pen, or maybe with machinery no more complex than the Scantron machine you remember from high school.  Use open-source technology that doesn’t need a lot of software updates, doesn’t require any fancy training, and isn’t a mystery to anyone–or, at a bare minimum, that isn’t a mystery to your neighbor, uncle, or friend who at least knows computers and engineering enough to program a machine to countI don’t know how to do that, but it makes a big difference that people I know can understand such technology.  But no one I’ve ever met knows what’s going on inside these voting machines.

They Are Not Trustworthy

To some extent, you need only read the above.

To a greater extent, the massive untrustworthiness of these machines is best understood by carefully reading what Dominion Voting Systems actually says about their machines, reading an important report from a committee in the Michigan State Senate, and letting G. K. Chesterton remind us what sanity looks like.

Hath it not been said by Dominion Voting Systems?

Voting systems are, by design, meant to be used as closed systems that are not networked (meaning not connected to the Internet). It is technologically impossible to “see” votes being counted in real-time and/or to “flip” them.

Were the machines incapable of online connectivity, would Dominion not simply say that?

Well, many vote-counting machines really do have online capabilities, including some but not all Dominion machines and not only Dominion machines; see this NBC News story, for example.  But, more importantly, see page 22 of this report from a committee of the Senate of Michigan:

A report from the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee:

Upon completion of the election, tabulators print the final results on paper. Clerks then connect a modem and transmit by secure, cellular connection or transfer by flash drive the unofficial results to the county clerk.

The Report then says the second-most important thing I’ve ever read about voting machines, consigning it to a footnote in miserably small font size: Voting machines (not including Dominion products in Michigan, apparently) have internal modems, but don’t worry:

…they are not turned on until the polls are closed and tabulation has concluded.

G.K. ChestertonSo first the machine counts the votes, then it prints the results on paper, and only after that is it allowed to access the internet for the fast, electronic reporting of provisional results.  Or, for some of the machines, to be accessed by a USB drive for the same purpose.

In other words, the technology is secure if we keep all the modems off till the right time.  Our elections are secure if we use the technology correctly.

Hence some wisdom from Father Brown, G. K. Chesterton’s mystery-solving priest in a book named after his wisdom, is the most important thing I’ve read about voting machines.  Father Brown is explaining “The Mistake of the Machine” in a story bearing that name, and he says this:

“You always forget,” observed his companion [Father Brown], “that the reliable machine always has to be worked by an unreliable machine.”

“Why, what do you mean?” asked the detective.

“I mean Man,” said Father Brown, “the most unreliable machine I know of.”

The voting machines are not safe if they are not used properly.  The only way for them to be used properly is for there to be safeguards in place–starting with something on the order of rules in 50 states saying no such machine may be used to count votes until poll observers from both parties plus government officials swear in writing that the modems are switched off.

If those rules were in place, we’d have had their existence and important drummed into our skulls by every fact-checking punk from CNN to the state governments.  But that hasn’t happened. Therefore, the voting machines are not trustworthy.

We should listen to the feds–if only just this once.  Specifically, we should listen to the Election Assistance Commission, a US government agency, laying down VVSG 2.0 standards–“Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0”–right here.  Those rules require “systems to be air-gapped from other networks and disallows the use of wireless technologies.”

That’s right–not only do voting machines with online connectivity exist, but even the feds recognize that this is a problem, and they tell us we should get rid of them.

A broken clock is once twice a day, and once if it’s a federal government clock on military time that broke down in the afternoon.  But now is that time.

Published in Elections
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 85 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Nathanael Ferguson Contributor
    Nathanael Ferguson
    @NathanaelFerguson

    Steve Fast (View Comment):

    I don’t see how voting machines are inherently more or less secure than human counting. I don’t actually observe my vote being added to the tally in either a system. The security of either one is predicated on the design of the system, the implementation, and the honesty of the humans involved.

    Voting machines seem more likely to have the vulnerability of being manipulated in the aggregate versus paper ballots which are much more difficult to manipulate at scale. It might be possible to fraudulently manipulate the outcome of a local election using paper ballots, but much more difficult a statewide or national election. It seems more likely that with the widespread use of machines, elections can be manipulated on a larger scale. 

    • #31
  2. Nathanael Ferguson Contributor
    Nathanael Ferguson
    @NathanaelFerguson

    Steve Fast (View Comment):

    I don’t see how voting machines are inherently more or less secure than human counting. I don’t actually observe my vote being added to the tally in either a system. The security of either one is predicated on the design of the system, the implementation, and the honesty of the humans involved.

    Human counting can be verified through recounts. Machines can be manipulated so that no true recount can take place. Physical ballots are much more difficult to manipulate. 

    • #32
  3. Steve Fast Member
    Steve Fast
    @SteveFast

    Nathanael Ferguson (View Comment):

    Steve Fast (View Comment):

    I don’t see how voting machines are inherently more or less secure than human counting. I don’t actually observe my vote being added to the tally in either a system. The security of either one is predicated on the design of the system, the implementation, and the honesty of the humans involved.

    Human counting can be verified through recounts. Machines can be manipulated so that no true recount can take place. Physical ballots are much more difficult to manipulate.

    Suitcases of physical ballots can be added to or removed from the hand counting, after which recounts do no good. Both types of systems depend on good procedures and honest people.

    • #33
  4. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    David Foster (View Comment):

    Paper ballots are the way to go. I believe France does this, and gets election results in a reasonable time frame. If the media has to wait, too bad.

    Of course, France is also a lot smaller, and many ballots people deal with in the US can have a large number of candidates, measures, etc.

    Bigger than Alabama? Alaska? Arkansas? Utah?

    Elections are a state thing.

    The states are ultimately in charge, but things like referenda, bond issues, and the like can be local. This would cause ballots that would be specific to the area. Generally, ballots are counted either at the precinct or the county level.

    • #34
  5. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Steve Fast (View Comment):

    I don’t see how voting machines are inherently more or less secure than human counting. I don’t actually observe my vote being added to the tally in either a system. The security of either one is predicated on the design of the system, the implementation, and the honesty of the humans involved.

    Right. We’re using machines without the design and implementation that would make them secure and democratic. We should stop doing that.

    • #35
  6. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Percival (View Comment):
    The noises those bozos make about their software being proprietary is just too funny. It’s tabulating software; it counts things! 

    A state or municipality should reject the use of any machine where they are not allowed to verify the veracity of the code . . .

    • #36
  7. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    I would point out in passing that there have been many, many safeguards prudently crafted to protect against the very abuses we have seen, and we have seen on video local law enforcement threatening those who insist that those safeguards be enforced. I have followed this issue since the 90s, it did not start with Trump. In 2000, there was a minor scandal because a Diebold voting machine had a USB port that was not epoxied (rendered useless) per the required procedure to assure that there was no opportunity for tampering. In 2020, they connected the boxes to the Internet, denied they did it, said there was no reason not to do it, said that you can’t make us do it. The problem with using proprietary voting machines is claims of intellectual property protection versus election auditing/transparency. A paper/human driven system simply requires more people to be bad actors to steal an election. And avoid detection.

    Trump was just the first victim who fought back, Lord bless him. He has given us the opportunity to restore democracy in this wheezing republic. 

    We need more prison space. And an actual election day. And manual vote counting. It really ticks me off that France figured it out while we were being bone stupid.

    • #37
  8. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Stad (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    The noises those bozos make about their software being proprietary is just too funny. It’s tabulating software; it counts things!

    A state or municipality should reject the use of any machine where they are not allowed to verify the veracity of the code . . .

    A CRC to be run on the executable image when the software is initiated, and one when it completes. If they really want to impress me, the CRC can be run periodically while the software is running. That’s the way they do it in the big leagues.

    • #38
  9. namlliT noD Member
    namlliT noD
    @DonTillman

    Nathanael Ferguson (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):So if there are, say, 30 million ballots in California – assuming less than half the population actually votes – with 100 issues/candidates/etc, that’s 3 BILLION total votes. And most of them are probably not just Yes/No. They’re going to be a list of names…

    I don’t know if 3 BILLION votes can be counted by hand in time for the 11 o’clock news.

    Sure they can. When you break it down to precinct level it’s totally doable.

    Yes, at the precinct level.

    The average precinct size is around 400 ballots.  Completely doable.  

     

    I’ll also mention my post, A Better Approach to Elections, where I describe a practical system of paper ballots, off-the-shelf scanners, publicly available ballot images, and open-source software to tabulate the results quickly.

    It’s simple, inexpensive, secure, transparent, fast, and doesn’t involve questionable machines.

    • #39
  10. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    namlliT noD (View Comment):

    Nathanael Ferguson (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):So if there are, say, 30 million ballots in California – assuming less than half the population actually votes – with 100 issues/candidates/etc, that’s 3 BILLION total votes. And most of them are probably not just Yes/No. They’re going to be a list of names…

    I don’t know if 3 BILLION votes can be counted by hand in time for the 11 o’clock news.

    Sure they can. When you break it down to precinct level it’s totally doable.

    Yes, at the precinct level.

    The average precinct size is around 400 ballots. Completely doable.

     

    I’ll also mention my post, A Better Approach to Elections, where I describe a practical system of paper ballots, off-the-shelf scanners, publicly available ballot images, and open-source software to tabulate the results quickly.

    It’s simple, inexpensive, secure, transparent, fast, and doesn’t involve questionable machines.

    I’ve never seen a video of the machines at work. Do they function like the ancient IBM punch card readers? Do you just put the marked ballots in some sort of feeder and have the machines scan them? 

    • #40
  11. Rodin Moderator
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Sisyphus (View Comment):
    [T]here have been many, many safeguards prudently crafted to protect against the very abuses we have seen, and we have seen on video local law enforcement threatening those who insist that those safeguards be enforced.

    This is a core problem. When government wants shady outcomes, the citizens are no longer in charge.

     

    • #41
  12. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Steve Fast (View Comment):

    Nathanael Ferguson (View Comment):

    Steve Fast (View Comment):

    I don’t see how voting machines are inherently more or less secure than human counting. I don’t actually observe my vote being added to the tally in either a system. The security of either one is predicated on the design of the system, the implementation, and the honesty of the humans involved.

    Human counting can be verified through recounts. Machines can be manipulated so that no true recount can take place. Physical ballots are much more difficult to manipulate.

    Suitcases of physical ballots can be added to or removed from the hand counting, after which recounts do no good. Both types of systems depend on good procedures and honest people.

    Yes paper ballots can always be taken away and found days later  in the Chicago River,as one example. But it is one thing for three banker boxes of ballots to be removed, and quite another to have a quarter million votes flipped electronically from one candidate to another.

    The boxes at least may eventually wash to shore and prove the existence of hanky panky. But the digital switch is something that would have to be noted in real time by a trained software engineer allowed to watch at a election center’s computer, something that is usually forbidden. (Although I think it is illegal to forbid such witnessing. But forbidden dictates were plentiful during the 2020 election, as the short video I posted a few weeks ago showed how the Detroit area election captain would not allow in the Republican ballot count  observers.))

    Anyway even if the computer expert is sitting there, the digital code would go by so quickly that it would be hard for the person to spot.

    • #42
  13. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    from his tweet earlier today: @charliekirk11

    “The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has struck a devastating blow against the left’s racket to make election integrity borderline illegal.  “For decades, random citizens have been allowed to sue state or local governments to throw out voter ID, signature verification, or other election practices that supposedly constitute “discrimination.” This law has encouraged well-funded groups to sue every government, however minor, that has any election security measures. Many jurisdictions fear passing any laws at all because they don’t want to deal with the legal costs and hassle. The left has built a massive apparatus led by Marc Elias to outsource all its election lawsuits.  “Now, the 8th Circuit says this racket is illegal throughout its jurisdiction, which includes the swing states of Iowa and Minnesota. Marc Elias is fuming. He calls it the most dramatic change to election laws in half a century. His group, Democracy Docket, calls it ‘catastrophic.’  “The tide is shifting. 2024 is not 2020. We can win — and the left is starting to panic.”####  ·501.3KViews

    • #43
  14. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Part of a long, long series of trying to figure things out. Here’s some more of it:

    And the obligatory:

    THE-undying-SPARTAN ("I think we're just getting started.") | DeviantArt

    • #44
  15. WillowSpring Member
    WillowSpring
    @WillowSpring

    As a software engineer, I am all in favor of paper ballots.

    Two points:

    1. About 5 years ago, a consortium of technical schools got together to develop a standard for secure voting systems.  In addition to being open sourced, the proposal included an individual code (part of a block-chain which is the ultimate in non-explainable systems) which could be used by the individual voter to verify that his vote was counted at each step in the process.   This at least had the advantage of putting lots of eyeballs on the system.  I haven’t heard how this turned out.

    2. Annually (I think), there is a “white-hat” conference of “ethical hackers”.  Part of the conference is a contest to see who can break into a commercial system in the most complete way.  The vendors of these systems actually pay a prize for someone who demonstrates a problem in their software, since it helps them improve it.  One year, voting machines were part of the list of targets and they were severely compromised.  If I remember correctly, the vector could be either direct connection or a USB stick.  There was some controversy, since Dominion and other voting system vendors refused to participate and the actual machines used were obtained in some mysterious way.  To my knowledge, this test has not been repeated.

    As in the Adams quote in a previous thread, I think the solution depends on a “moral and religious people” more than technology.

     

    • #45
  16. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    WillowSpring (View Comment):

    As a software engineer, I am all in favor of paper ballots.

    Two points:

    1. About 5 years ago, a consortium of technical schools got together to develop a standard for secure voting systems. In addition to being open sourced, the proposal included an individual code (part of a block-chain which is the ultimate in non-explainable systems) which could be used by the individual voter to verify that his vote was counted at each step in the process. This at least had the advantage of putting lots of eyeballs on the system. I haven’t heard how this turned out.

    Any way of verifying that votes are counted CORRECTLY?

    I might also point out that just showing a vote passed through a certain part of the system, wouldn’t necessarily prove it was actually counted at all.

    • #46
  17. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    WillowSpring (View Comment):
    As in the Adams quote in a previous thread, I think the solution depends on a “moral and religious people” more than technology.

    Yes, we’re still not treating the root of our problems even if we fix the elections.

    We could find a witch who raised the ghost of Castro to possess the guy running a CIA office that hacks the voting machines to ensure leftist triumphs, and we still wouldn’t be getting to the root.

    Adams gets to the root there.

    • #47
  18. Steve Fast Member
    Steve Fast
    @SteveFast

    WillowSpring (View Comment):
    As a software engineer, I am all in favor of paper ballots.

    Interestingly, Florida’s system is considered one of the best in the country, and everyone must vote on paper ballots. So it sounds like they agree with you.

    • #48
  19. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Steve Fast (View Comment):

    WillowSpring (View Comment):
    As a software engineer, I am all in favor of paper ballots.

    Interestingly, Florida’s system is considered one of the best in the country, and everyone must vote on paper ballots. So it sounds like they agree with you.

    Paper ballots also need to be secure.  I remember reading somewhere that in Arizona, despite there supposedly being just one type of paper approved for ballots, a variety of paper types/weights turned up.

    • #49
  20. WillowSpring Member
    WillowSpring
    @WillowSpring

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Any way of verifying that votes are counted CORRECTLY?

    Ha!  I guess we need to focus on one thing at a time.  If I remember correctly, this depended on the open-source nature of the software doing the tabulating.  The fancy block-chain stuff kept track that legitimate votes got processed and fake votes couldn’t.  The processing was a whole ‘nother thing.

    • #50
  21. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    WillowSpring (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Any way of verifying that votes are counted CORRECTLY?

    Ha! I guess we need to focus on one thing at a time. If I remember correctly, this depended on the open-source nature of the software doing the tabulating. The fancy block-chain stuff kept track that legitimate votes got processed and fake votes couldn’t. The processing was a whole ‘nother thing.

    How does block-chain keep illegitimate votes out if they’re on anonymous ballots?

    • #51
  22. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    kedavis (View Comment):

    WillowSpring (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Any way of verifying that votes are counted CORRECTLY?

    Ha! I guess we need to focus on one thing at a time. If I remember correctly, this depended on the open-source nature of the software doing the tabulating. The fancy block-chain stuff kept track that legitimate votes got processed and fake votes couldn’t. The processing was a whole ‘nother thing.

    How does block-chain keep illegitimate votes out if they’re on anonymous ballots?

    The whole thing would seem to rely on the trackable, nameless ballots being filled out by people with photo IDs and submitted with no record of which ID went with which ballot.

    I expect it can be done.  But watch what happens after midnight when the water pipes are reported broken and the Republicans have been sent home.

    • #52
  23. OmegaPaladin Coolidge
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    Has anyone here ever used a Scantron grading machine?   I could read my entire class’s exams in 5 minutes.    If there’s an error, you can run it again with the same ballots.   You can audit it easily.

    I think pushing for simple scanners is a reliable method, and it will be easier to persuade people that a simple scanner is superior to our current system rather than paper ballots counted by hand.   From a human factors standpoint, people are not as good as machines at this kind of precise work.

    Also, make the specifications for the ballot scanner public domain.

    • #53
  24. Bryan G. Stephens 🚫 Banned
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Has anyone here ever used a Scantron grading machine? I could read my entire class’s exams in 5 minutes. If there’s an error, you can run it again with the same ballots. You can audit it easily.

    I think pushing for simple scanners is a reliable method, and it will be easier to persuade people that a simple scanner is superior to our current system rather than paper ballots counted by hand. From a human factors standpoint, people are not as good as machines at this kind of precise work.

    Also, make the specifications for the ballot scanner public domain.

    I tend to agree, but, let’s be honest, that rule of thumb is not always applied to everyone.

     

    • #54
  25. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Has anyone here ever used a Scantron grading machine? I could read my entire class’s exams in 5 minutes. If there’s an error, you can run it again with the same ballots. You can audit it easily.

    I think pushing for simple scanners is a reliable method, and it will be easier to persuade people that a simple scanner is superior to our current system rather than paper ballots counted by hand. From a human factors standpoint, people are not as good as machines at this kind of precise work.

    Also, make the specifications for the ballot scanner public domain.

    I remember Scantron machines.  But were they able to allow for various options such as picking any 2 candidates from a list of 10, etc?

    • #55
  26. Globalitarian Lower Order Misanthropist Coolidge
    Globalitarian Lower Order Misanthropist
    @Flicker

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Has anyone here ever used a Scantron grading machine? I could read my entire class’s exams in 5 minutes. If there’s an error, you can run it again with the same ballots. You can audit it easily.

    I think pushing for simple scanners is a reliable method, and it will be easier to persuade people that a simple scanner is superior to our current system rather than paper ballots counted by hand. From a human factors standpoint, people are not as good as machines at this kind of precise work.

    Also, make the specifications for the ballot scanner public domain.

    I have to say, I think even before the election, the argument was that revealing the program would make it hackable so it had to remain secret.  Made sense at the time.

    • #56
  27. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Globalitarian Lower Order Misa… (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Has anyone here ever used a Scantron grading machine? I could read my entire class’s exams in 5 minutes. If there’s an error, you can run it again with the same ballots. You can audit it easily.

    I think pushing for simple scanners is a reliable method, and it will be easier to persuade people that a simple scanner is superior to our current system rather than paper ballots counted by hand. From a human factors standpoint, people are not as good as machines at this kind of precise work.

    Also, make the specifications for the ballot scanner public domain.

    I have to say, I think even before the election, the argument was that revealing the program would make it hackable so it had to remain secret. Made sense at the time.

    Maybe to the… unfamiliar?  But the best way to make something unhackable is for it to have no online connection.  At all.  Ever.

    I’m surprised at the number of people I encounter who don’t think a computer could ever possibly count wrong.  As if it couldn’t possibly be programmed specifically to do so.

    • #57
  28. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Globalitarian Lower Order Misa… (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Has anyone here ever used a Scantron grading machine? I could read my entire class’s exams in 5 minutes. If there’s an error, you can run it again with the same ballots. You can audit it easily.

    I think pushing for simple scanners is a reliable method, and it will be easier to persuade people that a simple scanner is superior to our current system rather than paper ballots counted by hand. From a human factors standpoint, people are not as good as machines at this kind of precise work.

    Also, make the specifications for the ballot scanner public domain.

    I have to say, I think even before the election, the argument was that revealing the program would make it hackable so it had to remain secret. Made sense at the time.

    How does one hack a computer that is supposed to run standalone with no network connections? And if it has internet access, why? And, no, I don’t want to hear that the company might need to update the software after the machines have been certified. 

    • #58
  29. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Globalitarian Lower Order Misa… (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Has anyone here ever used a Scantron grading machine? I could read my entire class’s exams in 5 minutes. If there’s an error, you can run it again with the same ballots. You can audit it easily.

    I think pushing for simple scanners is a reliable method, and it will be easier to persuade people that a simple scanner is superior to our current system rather than paper ballots counted by hand. From a human factors standpoint, people are not as good as machines at this kind of precise work.

    Also, make the specifications for the ballot scanner public domain.

    I have to say, I think even before the election, the argument was that revealing the program would make it hackable so it had to remain secret. Made sense at the time.

    Maybe to the… unfamiliar? But the best way to make something unhackable is for it to have no online connection. At all. Ever.

    I’m surprised at the number of people I encounter who don’t think a computer could ever possibly count wrong. As if it couldn’t possibly be programmed specifically to do so.

    Beat me to it!

    • #59
  30. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Globalitarian Lower Order Misa… (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    Has anyone here ever used a Scantron grading machine? I could read my entire class’s exams in 5 minutes. If there’s an error, you can run it again with the same ballots. You can audit it easily.

    I think pushing for simple scanners is a reliable method, and it will be easier to persuade people that a simple scanner is superior to our current system rather than paper ballots counted by hand. From a human factors standpoint, people are not as good as machines at this kind of precise work.

    Also, make the specifications for the ballot scanner public domain.

    I have to say, I think even before the election, the argument was that revealing the program would make it hackable so it had to remain secret. Made sense at the time.

    Maybe to the… unfamiliar? But the best way to make something unhackable is for it to have no online connection. At all. Ever.

    I’m surprised at the number of people I encounter who don’t think a computer could ever possibly count wrong. As if it couldn’t possibly be programmed specifically to do so.

    Or be misused by the careless.

    People just don’t read Chesterton enough.

    Meme that almost fits:

    YARN | What do they teach in schools these days? | The Chronicles of  Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) | Video clips by quotes  | f1aac9dd | 紗

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.