The US overwhelmingly uses paper voting (often paired with electronic tabulation). We can't "move back", it's where we are.
Electronic tabulation introduces little risk when the ballots are paper.
Electronic tabulation introduces little risk when the ballots are paper.
And not all paper systems are good either. I'm sure everyone remembers the disaster that was the punch card system used by Florida in the 2000 election...
Do European and other first world countries favor electronic tabulation?
Is it possible that introduction of all electronic factors reduce trust?
But you don't need everyone to be convinced of it first-hand. You just need everyone to trust someone who is convinced of it.
Manual counting requires zero trust. In my country anyone is welcome to observe the entire process from start to finish, if they wish to do so. A few years back a fringe far-right party tried importing the voting integrity distrust over here, and recruited people to watch their local polling stations to "expose the fraud". Which was totally fine because they were always allowed to do so, and it fizzled out because zero evidence of fraud was found, and that party still didn't get a significant number of votes.
1. In both cases, everyone is theoretically capable of checking it themselves; they're theoretically zero-trust. In the former scenario, I'm theoretically capable of attending the vote count, and in the latter scenario, I'm theoretically capable of learning the statistics needed to verify the argument.
2. In both cases, most people cannot (or will not) practically check it themselves, and is trusting that someone they trust is doing the checking for them.
I'm not saying they're the exact same situation, but they both ask for a large amount of trust from most of the voters.
- The observe-system operates on an adversarial basis. The people observing the voting process are state officer, independent observer, each party's observers. If you vote for party X, then you trust that party and its people to do right by you. This include trust party X's observer, who additionally is often a local well-known person. You can actively distrust all the other observers and officers, and as long as your observer gives the A-Okay, you are happy with the result. This trust in your observer is a very simple human kind of trust. No expertise is needed by your observer. If you trust other observers, your trust in the result goes even higher.
- The stats-system is founding its trust in the trustworthiness of the stats experts. The problem is that (1) you don't know the stats expert personally. In fact, a huge chunk of the population in any country doesn't know anyone who is good enough at maths and stats. If people in your family are not the math type, your friends will also not be the math type. (2) It is incredibly easy to sling mud at the expertise and trustworthiness of an expert. This process is operating at a very high level these days on social media. Anyone remotely connected to politics is continuously character assassinated by others. Adopting a stats-system actually will actually increase this mud slinging to new heights.
The observe-system is better because as someone else has said, all the counters and anti-counters to it have been known for 100s of years. Breaking it requires breking 100s or 1000s of polling stations across the country. The stats-system has more central points of trust which can be broken more easily.
Now, you might contend that this is not a list of first-world countries exactly (but rather I sampled the largest countries). You must keep in mind that the use of electronic tabulation in the United States is mostly a response to the very limited budget on which elections are carried out; electronic tabulation is much less expensive than significantly increasing staffing. As a result, globally, electronic tabulation tends to be most common in poorer countries or countries with newer election systems, while hand tabulation is most common in wealthier countries with long-established election procedures.
For this reason, the countries you might go to for comparison (like France and Germany) have largely manual election processes that have often seen few changes since the Second World War.
The Help America Vote Act (2002) had a de facto effect of making the United States a country with much newer election processes, as HAVA requires strict accessibility measures that most European election systems do not meet (e.g. unassisted voting for blind and deaf people). Most US election systems didn't meet them either, in 2002, so almost the entire country had to design new election processes over a fairly short span of time and on a shoestring budget. Understandably, election administrators leaned on automation to make that possible.
It's also important to understand that because of the US tradition of special-purpose mill levies and elected independent boards (like school boards), the average US ballot has significantly more questions than the average European ballot. This further increases the cost and complexity of hand tabulation, even ruling out entirely the "optimized" hand tabulation methods used in France and Ireland.
Dominion, the company that doubled it's net worth by winning a defamation suit against Fox over claims their machines had been compromised?
That Dominion?
vote by mail (and similar ballot harvesting, bulk ballot dropoffs with hazy chain-of-custody as from a nursing homes and immigrant communities) are new, based on paper, and open to abuse.
It's not where we were.
traditional absentee balloting was a small scale thing used by college students, military personnel, etc. and if it was messed up, it was not likely to change outcomes or a threat to counting accurately (no election is perfect)
1. why did absentee voting/vote by mail expand? What was the claimed intention and purpose? What has been the actual result (and based on what evidence) ?
2. who has an interest in underming confidence in vote by mail and why? What evidence do they offer that it actually is a problem?
legitimately elected politicians cheat left and right all over the place, and there is every reason to rhink illegimate election is just as attractive to them as the fruits of the power they seek, it's human nature, it's in the bible, it's in the koran, it's why we have laws. I would prefer a voting system that was guaranteed as secure as we can because the power to vote them out of office is our best hope.
So unless you believe there's a whole layer of election fraud that nobody - not the losing party, not pro publica, not the FBI, not state investigators, not reddit - has been able to even detect, there's just really nothing to talk about here.
if security researchers find vulns in network software, should they be fixed, or should a hypothetical researcher PaulDavidThe2ndSmartestPersonInThisThread quash the discussion by saying "there is no evidence that these vulns are being exploited"?
fsckboy thinks they should be fixed
https://thegeorgiasun.com/government/your-vote/inside-the-fu...
https://thegeorgiasun.com/government/your-vote/inside-the-fu...
understand that politicians who would benefit from fraud would also control the investigation, making your "see no evil" monkey brain's position as questionable as the election system security is
However, vulnerabilities that have demonstrably led to the wrong person being elected are entirely different to vulnerabilities that are invoked only in hypothetical scenarios for which there is no evidence that they've ever happened.
There are lots of things in this world that ought to be "fixed", but I'd prefer we prioritize the ones that are actively, demonstrably causing harm rather than the ones which "could cause harm if A, B & C even though A, B & C have never been observed to occur together".
So sure, fix the vulnerabilities, all of them, but don't lie about their status or impact on actual elections.
This claim is frequently made and never backed job with any compelling evidence.
as we know from all over the internet and from various financial frauds, rug pulls, insurance frauds, etc., if there is something to gain, there is no shortage of people who will abuse any system.
Mail-in voting has been operating for decades. Nobody fear mongering about for all these years has ever delivered a shred of evidence to back their claims. It’s flat earth-grade conspiracy nonsense.
Our elections are designed to handle everything you said. I wrote another comment explaining, but you can also literally go watch it done yourself.
Everything's a conspiracy when you don't know how anything works.