Re:Diebold voting machines can be hacked by remote control
by DanielBMarkham on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @08:39PM
(#3045925)
Having thought about this a bit, I don't see how you do electronic voting without giving the voter a receipt that contains a sequence number, timestamp, and current status of the machine. All encrypted, of course. That way the paper trail can be reassembled if necessary to see if it matches the end state. Hope that was explanatory enough. It also partially distributes oversight authority to all the voters instead of having it all at the poll.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Diebold voting machines can be hacked by remote control
by InclinedPlane on Wednesday September 28, 2011 @02:15AM
(#3046728)
There's no point in maintaining a distributed paper trail, since actually making use of it would violate anonymity and be a gigantic hassle, you might as well just keep the paper trail centralized. And if you're doing that then you might as well just go back to electronically scanned paper ballots.
Re:Diebold voting machines can be hacked by remote control
by ugh on Wednesday September 28, 2011 @06:17AM
(#3047197)
Secret electronic voting is just too much hassle. Manual counting really isn't that big of a deal, at least with current election systems.
Re:Diebold voting machines can be hacked by remote control
by binbasti on Wednesday September 28, 2011 @07:18AM
(#3047323)
For elections to be considered democratic, they must not only be fair and anonymous, but also comprehensible to all. As any electronic voting system (even an insecure one) is only comprehensible to some, electronic voting is by definition not democratic and should therefore be forbidden in any country that claims itself to be that.
Actually, in Germany the highest court declared electronic voting to be unconstitutional on the grounds of deficient comprehensibility in 2009. Maybe we can use this argument in other countries, too.