I think it was just a misunderstanding on my part. It sounded like OP was advocating for a purely paper-driven system. That's why I said it's a Luddite position.

I think the misunderstanding on your part may have been similar meaning I'm advocating for entirely electronic.

To me electronic voting means a machine generating your ballot which avoids spoilage like hanging chads, incorrectly filled out ballots, etc (paper ballots should also be an option). Electronic voting means using counting machines to tabulate everything quickly while creating & retaining a paper trail for auditing. This is literally what Schneier is talking about: merging the advantages of both to mitigate the disadvantages of either.

Electronic voting is fundamentally incompatible elections. It's too easy to flip bits, and it always will be. "Hanging chads" etc are trivial issues (I would argue features) compared to the problems digital voting introduces.

But literally a paper trail is generated that can be used to audit any problems. How is that not better? Your "hanging chad" issue being a feature makes it sound like you're OK with disenfranchising people you look down upon.

"feature makes it sound like you're OK with disenfranchising people"

...if you assume the least useful interpretation of the comment. Could having a real physical object to examine be useful?

The paper as a "backup" is worse than backwards, it's an excuse to implement electronic voting, and since there is "no evidence" of problems, why would you need to examine the paper anyway?

You'd examine the paper to ensure integrity of the system. That's literally the point. Just like physical ballots are kept around.

Also, I think you're misunderstanding. The "no evidence" conclusion comes from auditing the paper ballot (as Schneier points out in that blog post above). You don't get to say "no evidence of problems" until the electronic & paper ballot agree. If there's disagreement you don't know which method is right & thus you have to hold a new election.

"You'd examine the paper to ensure integrity of the system."

Then just use paper.

Recounts (which is what your suggestion will get called in practice) require legal maneuvers which are fought by the winning side. Adding a electronic component to voting will never lower it's complexity.

> You might be surprised that that "Luddite" response is actually the consensus opinion among experts familiar with electronic voting technology.

I don't know if it is the consensus opinion among experts, but it certainly wasn't the opinion Schneier expressed in that article.

Granted, he had strong words to say about the voting machines used in the US. And justifiably so. They are just plain horrible, they've been known to be horrible for years if not decades now and I find it hard to understand why the most sophisticated and wealthy places on the planet continue to use them. Particularly as we have known how to do it right for almost as long as they have been in use.

To Schneier's credit he does explain how electronic voting can be done securely in the article. Which makes your comment all the more puzzling.