• Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    15 hours ago

    And yet the “scary machines” are too easy to tamper with… they are scared of them because of how hard it would be to get away with tampering with them. And they know their supporters and others in government don’t know any better and will jump on the bandwagon of the machines being vaguely scary.

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      As I understand it, a fairly bulletproof method is to vote using a machine that prints out a human readable card with a punch through the candidates you voted for. So you can confirm the machine understood the options you tapped and then drop the paper ballot into a secure box, which can be used as a backup for manual recounts.

      Anybody know if this is what the experts [still] want?

      • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        Honestly, while it would certainly help sell it to less technical people. There is no need for a paper copy to make it impossible to get away with tampering with digital voting, building in safeguards entirely digitally is actually enough.

        But yes, most commonly recommended option is to have the machines do a quick result, and then paper to verify.