Hacker News Reader

Comment by cardosof | Hacker News Reader

Paper, electronic, whatever: if you don't trust whoever is responsible for holding elections and counting votes, you won't trust the results regardless of how they were achieved - specially if your candidate has lost.

However, I like two simple arguments for paper ballots: low skilled people theoretically could still verify, so it seems more democratic. And changing / replacing millions of papers doesn't seem to scale as well as a hacker changing codes.

View on HN

I think there would be more faith in the elections if we didn't have images like this:

https://c.files.bbci.co.uk/A4F1/production/_115252224_gettyi...

Followed by articles like this:

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

And blocking audits like this:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-audit-election-subpoena...

I agree, give everyone paper. Count by hand. Then scan into machine. Every ballot should have a secret code they can then use to see their ballot online.

On your first photo, there's literally a press photographer in the room taking the photo. There were other press and witnesses too, but people had been told to get down and make their way down and put pressure on counters.

Really don't see why they wouldn't keep out a mass of protesters mid count? If they were doing it in a completely unmonitored room you might have a point.

They weren’t protesters, look at their badges, they were press and poll watchers being taken out. There’s video of this, with them cheering inside the room.

If you read the article on “fortifying the election for the proper outcome” they straight up say why they do this.

The general point isn’t what you or I know or believe. That image doesn’t spread any confidence. In a democracy, all citizens need to trust an election to allow for a peaceful transition of power. Basically, everyone has to be like, “okay, fine my guy lost”

To accomplish that anyone should be able to observe and inspect or its not a democracy. One party doesn’t feel they can observe and knows they can’t inspect the results

Anyone who is for electronic only voting should be forced to watch few def con videos. Nothing is secure give enough resources and determination.

Paper ballots are extremely hard to hack given the scale of the operation. Because it would involve people. The more people involved to more chances one gets discovered or comes out with the truth.

I have no issues using both simultaneously for near instant results as long as paper count is there to verify the results.

This is the problem though: seeming significant % of our country do actually believe that millions of paper ballots were changed, replaced, flown in from China, and more.

I don't know how we begin to restore confidence and protect our Democracy when each of us live in radically different <i>un</i>realities.

Restore The Fairness Doctrine.

I haven’t done any research on this so feel free not to respond, but how would that work with the Internet? Both practical and regulatory issues seem impossible to resolve.

I think the system works as designed. If a country has 30 to 40 percent of its population being crazed qanon loonies, just what do we think this country deserves?

Would that work though? Some issues should not give 'balance' to both sides and that's a lot of the problem. Giving dangerous cooks extreme amounts of air time. the election was not stolen, climate change exists and is caused by humans, those are not worthy of multiple hours of 'news' each and every single day.

> Paper, electronic, whatever: if you don't trust whoever is responsible for holding elections and counting votes, you won't trust the results regardless of how they were achieved - specially if your candidate has lost.

I wouldn't trust anyone who subscribes to the QAnon lunacy to tie their own shoes.

heh qanon is literally a 4chan/8chan troll that snared millions of biters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com