People seemed to have forgotten the Diebold voting machines, and their provably insecure implementation... and the conspiracy theories about Bush benefiting from it. Odd how that was a liberal position at the time, and nobody called them names.
No one but the world's best computer security experts have a hope of comprehensively understanding a computer voting system. Even on the odd chance the entire software and hardware platform were open source and verifiable, it's probably beyond 90% of us here on Hacker News to even begin going about that independently.
The result is the election is no longer constructed out of an understandable system based on folk physics we all comprehend instinctively. We all understand the integrity of a physical ballot box, physical papers, and the difficulty of mass fraud against such a decentralized system.
Switch to fully-electronic voting and we lose that. It becomes a black box. Press a button. Get a result. With no faith in the process that rendered it. Our democratic result ceases to be the result of average citizens counting papers and becomes something just handed down by experts.
I'm not American, but if my country ever moves to eliminate paper ballots I will protest. I do like the idea of a terminal that prints your human-readable ballot for you as an assistive device, though.
The paper audit trail, physical ballot box, etc still exists.
I don't know if these machines exactly justify their cost... but they don't seem to be security risks.
[1] So by this I mean "only the republicans are complaining right now" and "they aren't complaining about states where non-paper voting machines used". In fact it looks like that of the 7 states with some form of non-paper voting machines, all but New Jersey went for Trump. New Jersey was never going to be close enough that the republicans feel like they can complain about it.
[2] List of states and how they use voting machines here: https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_and_equipment_by_stat...
Kentucky, Lousiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tenessee and Texas are the ones with "DRE without VVPAT" (voting machines that are more than a fancy pencil and/or paper ballot counter).
[3] Election results from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...
Because that way you can report preliminary results faster? I guess you also get the "two independent ways of counting say the same thing" benefit, but I'm pretty sure that they're primarily there because the news likes it.
Doing manual counts of states that at are at all close or suspected to be at all close is... normal.
Doing manual counts only when it's close isn't good enough though, as that leaves you open to a vulnerability where the attacker simply arranges for it to not be close.
That attack, for state and federal elections, involves falsifying multiple independent organizations' poll results, including exit polling on the day of. Otherwise the "not close" results will not be credible and they will be investigated.
I was with you until you threw in a blatant lie. Being against electronic voting has always been a position that got negative comments, insults etc. (unless foolish, luddite, naive, afraid, and so on are not insults anymore? Or maybe you don't consider them insults when your side issues them?). Perhaps you didn't experience that, or maybe you are just doing the whole "rose-colored glasses" view on the past thing. Either way, your statement about how no one called "them" names is just a sad attempt at throwing in a little dig, one that has no basis in reality, no real facts behind it, and only serves to divide everyone.
Your framing of the Hursti Hack [0] and how socially acceptable it is to discuss its merits does not seem to consider the very different way society tended to handle things like this in those days. Society has changed a lot. During the Bush/Kerry race I distinctly remember that being against the voting machines was decidedly counter-culture, but definitely not indicative of being a luddite or naive. Back then, being counter-culture was "cool," and only a sliver of the population actually cared to take a position against it.
The considerable research and publication [1] related to this incident helps demonstrate that society saw this issue in quite a different light a mere 15 years ago.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hursti_Hack [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20161202140146/https://www.suppo...
Also - which is true?
* only a sliver of the population even cared
* it was the liberal position back then
Your personal experience of your thoughts is not in any way related to the statement: "Odd how that was a liberal position at the time, and nobody called them names." They are just a tangential anecdote.
Since you do somehow think anecdotes are super duper relevant though:
I was an adult for bush/kerry. I remember too. Things were very different on the surface, but the divide was there then too - it was deep and it was pervasive. I remember coming out of a screening of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' and being yelled at by a crowd of people who thought I was a 'dirty liberal' and 'scumbag' for even seeing it. I remember having people threaten me because I was against the Iraq war and Afghanistan occupation. I remember being told my volunteer work to help underserved communities get access to the internet was pointless because "those people will never learn". The sides and arguments haven't changed - what has changed is the volume. The language of "us vs them" hasn't changed. The ignorant argument style of "here's my one personal viewpoint as proof that you are wrong" hasn't changed. The talking heads are still east coast liberal elites in an ivory tower (or fascist assholes just spewing lies and stirring up hate).
Perhaps my experience is an outlier. Perhaps you are just doing that "good old days" thing. Either way, neither of our stories have anything to do with the very specific point you replied to.
The statement in and of itself is also an anecdote. A hyperbolic one, at that.
The amount of butthurt people are displaying in this thread indicates to me that my point is quite on the money. The degree of controversy and rudeness that comes across in your own posts in particular is astonishing.
You're clearly older than I am, by the way. That's pretty sad.
Is that really true? I always thought it was a pretty popular position, at least in the tech community. I might be biased, but I don't know how anyone who has a modicum of understanding about computer (in)security and has performed an update query could ever be dismissively enthusiastic of electronic voting.
With the 2020 election, it was -- after the fact -- "all these machines are now corrupt because I lost". And I use the term "I lost" because it was the Trump campaign and it's most adherent supporters that were making the claims. And then there were recounts and investigations... which turned up nothing, but the complaints continued into court cases... which also turned up nothing, but the complaints and court cases turned into rallies... which became riots and insurrections.
So the difference is that the first group was largely rational and reasonable -- you'll note the distinct lack of injury and death -- while the second group ignored the facts, didn't care about the actual problem of the machines, and used it as a scapegoat to fuel insurrection, violence, and populism.
I'm sorry if you can't see it, but it's really not very subtle.