New Hampshire set to pilot voting machines that use software everyone can see

Re:New Hampshire set to pilot voting machines that use softw... by xorcist on Friday November 04, 2022 @07:07PM (#33475303)

Maybe I'm missing your point entirely, but that's one of the useful aspects of voter secrecy. Given that your vote is secret, your self-reported vote is worth approximately nothing. You could easily sell your vote to two or more parties, with none of them the wiser.

So your result is the expected one. But the outcome would not be the same with most types of harebrained "let's just vote with our phones" that people come up with regularly.

This is also why it is in most countries illegal to take photos or film around the voter booth.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New Hampshire set to pilot voting machines that use softw... by smeej on Friday November 04, 2022 @11:04PM (#33477405)

Ah. Right. Relevant context: In 2016, a federal appeals court ruled that a 2014 New Hampshire law banning photo booth selfies and punishing them with fines up to $1,000 was unconstitutional.[0]

A photo of me with my completed ballot, in the voting booth, has always been part of the offer, since that was the same year I finally quit bothering to cast my own ballot.

[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-appeals-court-r...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:New Hampshire set to pilot voting machines that use softw... by xorcist on Monday November 07, 2022 @08:16AM (#33505379)

That's ... highly unusual, from a democratic standpoint.

But I believe major point is still the same. Nobody knows if that's the actual posted ballot. You could easily take several and only cast one.

It is my personal belief that votes absolutely carry a market value, they're just very hard to monetize. (Which is usually regarded to be a virtue.)

[ Parent | on HN ]