The obligatory video from Computerphile and Tom Scott is obligatory.

Describes all the problems with electronic voting and why it's an awful idea. It's short for what it is, a fantastic eight minutes.

https://youtu.be/w3_0x6oaDmI

I know it's tangential to the point you're making, but I have to ask:

> using pencils

Why pencils? Aren't pens more secure (more difficult to erase / alter without leaving a visible mark on paper)?

According to the UK Electoral Commission [0]

  > The use of pencils does not in itself increase the likelihood of electoral 

fraud: while pencil marks can be rubbed out, similarly, pen marks can be crossed out. What is key is that the integrity of the process from the point that a voter marks their ballot paper to the declaration of the result is maintained.

Anecdotally, I've head people make the argument that pencils are more reliable than pens (mechanical failure etc.), that pens can be liable to smudging (especially if folded immediately after marking), and that the pencils they use are difficult (though not impossible) to rub out.

[0] https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pencil

No reason why it needs to be pencils specifically, just that they are the simplest, and simple is better. I was more trying to speak to the idea that a person is making the mark themselves without any other "machinery" or anything.

I've seen complicated mechanical hole punching machines that can break down, or machines that generate a cast ballot that is placed in a box that you can't be sure cast the vote correctly. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about avoiding when I say "using pencils".

Plus once your vote is put in the box, it doesn't matter if the ballot itself can be tampered with, as there should be multiple people watching that box until counted. So pen or pencil makes no difference. Erasable or otherwise doesn't matter. It can even just be a hole you poke in a box using the pencil. The important part is that nobody can touch it till it's counted in front of a bunch of people who all don't trust one another.

You could just have pre-printed ballots with the name of the person you're voting for on them. That's how we do it in France, no pen or pencil required.

I think in the USA there tends to be several issues on the ballots however, so I guess it's not very practical in that case. It probably makes the counting harder however.

> You could just have pre-printed ballots with the name of the person you're voting for on them.

Imagine a ballot (or something) that had the pre-printed names on them something like those paper "call me for xyz" things you see on bulletin boards everywhere (or well you used to)?

Basically the names would be on pieces of paper (maybe with a QR code?) about the size of what you get in a fortune cookie, that can be tore off the "ballot" and dropped in a box for later counting. With a QR code (or something similar), the counting could even be done with a machine.

Such a paper ballot could arguably have many names attached (here in the US we have so many positions and votes to cast on so many things it's mind boggling, especially during certain election times). I'm not sure if or how well it would work, but I think it might be doable - at least enough to attempt.

Ballots are usually pre-printed. But you still need a pen or pencil to check the right box.

Right, but it's still probably slightly harder to fill and count. Not massively so of course but maybe enough to slow things down.

Compare https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/France_%... with http://etc.usf.edu/clippix/pix/2012-presidential-election-ba...

In the Swedish voting system, there is one ballot per party, and you put the ballot for the party you are voting for into an envelope and put that envelope into the ballot box.

You only need a pen/pencil if you want to change the parties default ranking of their candidates (e.g. who in the party you want to see as prime minister) or you want to vote for a minor party which doesn't have ballots (write-in votes)

[I'm not endorsing the Swedish system just explaining how it works]

Same in norway. One ballot per party. In local elections we vote for both council and municipality, so there's two sets of ballots. Council ballot goes in one box and municipality ballot goes in another box. No reason why we couldn't have 20 boxes if we also voted for issues directly.

Also in local elections we can write in other people and give people on the ballot an "extra" vote for which we use a pen (but this is voluntary and I assume most don't bother).

I mean your not wrong. But the attack you are suggesting in mentioning the possibility of erasing and rewriting submitted votes is still avoided by general prevention of any ballot box tampering.

Not to mention lack of scalability, tampering would be pretty localized and not very effective for a state-wide electoral college vote.

With a pen mark you can just cross out the mark and put your X in another box. That would be accepted here in the UK at least.

And pencil marks can't be erased?

At my voting location they use paper ballots and only supply pens.

> Voting should be done on paper, using pencils, put into ballot boxes, and counted by people.

I'd go further and say that for such a manual system, the counting should be done as speedily as humanly possible, but that if it takes a few days to do it - then so be it.

I don't think this is one area that should be rushed, and I don't understand why so many people - including people who should know better - thinks it should be.