And paper is still secure. The US just had the most secure and vetted election in the history of elections ever, and most of that was done by paper. The only reason - the only reason - to try to switch to any kind of electronic voting, no matter how supposedly 'secure', is to try and rig the election. If there is no paper trail, there was no valid vote - and if there is a paper trail, why not just use paper to begin with?
Yes, and paper voting fraud risk is relatively minor compared to the risk from electronic voting. With modern tracking systems like Oregon and California have, paper ballots are cheap, traceable, verifiable, simple by design, difficult to cast fraudulent ballots in large quantities, and reliable. Electronic voting systems are expensive, complex, not easily verifiable or traceable*, less reliable, and one security breach could lead to countless fraudulent ballots. For universal systems, cheap, simple, and
Paper ballots have two significant weaknesses: they are easy to spoil and easy to replace. If a spoiled ballot can be corrected by an election worker, they might not faithfully transcribe the intended ballot. If they are not allowed to be corrected, it is easy to spoil a vote for the "wrong" candidate. In the most corrupt locations -- like Philadelphia (see, for example, https://apnews.com/article/4ca... [apnews.com]; former US Congressman Michael "Ozzie" Myers has been indicted on charges of being the political consultant who bribed that elections judge) -- there are not enough impartial observers to catch these abuses before they affect the final tally.
Yes, and those are individual and verifiable. Fudging a single ballot may be easy, but fudging a million ballots isn't. Fudging a million votes in a database is trivial.
"What people have been reduced to are mere 3-D representations of their own
data."
-- Arthur Miller
Because it's not necessary. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Because it's not necessary. (Score:2)
you seem to be unbelievably ignorant of the history of voting fraud in these United States, mostly done by paper for well over a century.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Because it's not necessary. (Score:2)
Paper ballots have two significant weaknesses: they are easy to spoil and easy to replace. If a spoiled ballot can be corrected by an election worker, they might not faithfully transcribe the intended ballot. If they are not allowed to be corrected, it is easy to spoil a vote for the "wrong" candidate. In the most corrupt locations -- like Philadelphia (see, for example, https://apnews.com/article/4ca... [apnews.com]; former US Congressman Michael "Ozzie" Myers has been indicted on charges of being the political consultant who bribed that elections judge) -- there are not enough impartial observers to catch these abuses before they affect the final tally.
Re: (Score:2)