Marco S Hyman wrote:
>
> All I demand from a voting system is that votes can be voter verified.
> That's not true of ANY voting machine regardless of who writes the code
> unless there is a hard copy audit trail. If there is a hard copy audit
> trail then it doesn't make any difference who wrote the code.
How do you know that the software generating the audit trail is playing
fair if it's closed source?
Sometimes, IMHO, there's just no alternative to pen and paper. Surely
the manual method of ticking a box and having multiple human vote
counters checking ballots is the best option going, even if it is more
expensive. (I confess I've no idea what costs are involved either way.)
>
> All I demand from a voting system is that votes can be voter verified.
> That's not true of ANY voting machine regardless of who writes the code
> unless there is a hard copy audit trail. If there is a hard copy audit
> trail then it doesn't make any difference who wrote the code.
How do you know that the software generating the audit trail is playing
fair if it's closed source?
Sometimes, IMHO, there's just no alternative to pen and paper. Surely
the manual method of ticking a box and having multiple human vote
counters checking ballots is the best option going, even if it is more
expensive. (I confess I've no idea what costs are involved either way.)
[ reply ]