The voting machine's viability is all about how easily a layman can verify its correctness. This is why any mechanical voting machines are theoretically "better" because the layman can actually SEE it working correctly or not.
Reason - we haven't solved basic issue of endpoint security yet!
There is always that aspect of it, it someone can get a hold of a box of ballots and somehow slip those into the process, it would be easy to circumvent any machine that relies on a paper audit trail.
A double entry system where you get your paper ballot optically scanned and you also place your vote into a independent system maybe even an electronic one could provide a better check against having just one system as a point of failure?
The larger the election, the more manual counters you will have. Which means the more people you would have to influence in order to rig an election.
Widespread vote manipulation of electronic systems much, much easier to keep a secret.
What do you mean? Doesn't it just requiere to perform a few divisions?
I don't understand what you mean. Why specifically can't we use the technology he describes?
> Have you ever tried to inpelement a modified d'hont method manually?
Where in the U.S. is that method used?