Hacker News Reader

Comment by kadoban | Hacker News Reader

That would only makes sense to me if rigging only one state was near useless. It's very much not. If you rig say, Florida, there's a fairly high chance of deciding the election.

View on HN

I don't think the machines matter as long as the vote can be replayed/recounted without ambiguity.

An idea: https://medium.com/@dotnetmike/touch-screen-voting-should-be...

It needs a paper record, this needs to be the source of truth.

Not just a paper record. A hand marked paper record. If it doesn't go through a computer first it can't be altered. There are several states that do it this way. It's a "Scantron" style ballot. Fill in the vote, run it through a tally machine and save the ballot. The tally machines could be messed with, but if there is evidence of tampering with the tally there is always the authentic original ballot.

Yes!

If you've got a paper record, just use that instead of the machines.

Machines just add more opportunities for fraud.

That's traditionally been the problem with voting machines: a "recount" just re-read some tally.

Combine this with voting machine companies being opaque, not recognizing obvious flaws and their executives promising to deliver states to particular candidates (https://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm), and you begin to feel that all the suspicion is justified.

> as long as the vote can be replayed/recounted without ambiguity.

Isn't this the core problem with most electronic voting as currently implemented in the US? I mean, that no such guarantee exists?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com