> There's pretty much no problem that given a large thoughtful effort, technology has not solved.
Technology has failed over and over to provide an accountable, verifiable, and secure election process.
Technology has failed over and over to provide an accountable, verifiable, and secure election process.
(1) https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/05/opinions/to-keep-our-votes-sa...
Mass producable pens and paper, decent locks, and nationwide logistic networks have made elections accountable, verifiable, and secure decades ago.
In this context (an article written by Google's CEO, about technology on computers), it arguably does.
By being pedantic, you might as well extend technology to everything up to, and including creating fire and making very basic hand tools. The article clearly isn't about that.
If you're saying computer technology has failed to solve election validity, that's a fair observation. It probably could if it was done correctly but the government has their best CS people working on spying on us while our elections are outsourced to idiots.
But not technology that guarantees what I mentioned previously.
> It's people who have failed to get it in use.
Some have, but some have resisted, for good reason too, because it fails to guarantee the things I mentioned previously.