True. This software isn't voting software though, but if I recall correctly, the tabulating software used to report and collate the reported voting totals (which are hand counted). In the Netherlands voting is done on paper with a red pencil, after a flop with voting computers a decade or so ago, and this process too is backed by a paper trail.

Paper voting was reinstated because a pressure group called "We don't trust voting computers", formed of hackers and other knowledgeable people, sued the government and won.

I believe this is very true, which is to say that digital voting being 'safe' is really a fallacy. Digital media is, by its very nature, eminently falsifiable. All the way to the substrate and back again.

Voting can be assisted by digital technologies, but should not be impinged upon by them.

Having an auditable trail, with paper, means that when the lights go out, the count can still go on.

Always remember, none of this works without the grid. We have built extremely fragile, frangible society upon a highly specious assumption: that up (or down) always means on ..

I don't agree. Estonia has online voting and I do not recall any fraud or interference. I actually think pen and paper would be a lot easier to manipulate or "miscount".

How so? I've volunteered to help run elections in two states in the US, and they both used optical-scan paper ballots. In both jurisdictions, the voter is the one who feeds their ballot into the scanner machine ("ballot box") to be counted. The machine makes a digital copy of each ballot and stores it in local memory. At the end of the night, we then report the number of ballots in the box and compare it to the number of ballots we issued out and the number of people who checked in at the registration desk. We call these numbers in, and the precinct chief hand-delivers the paper ballots, digital scans, and seal records to the county for legal and archival purposes.

In order to manipulate this, you would need the entire polling place staff to be in on the conspiracy, and they would need to cook up numbers and ballots that all match. All to mess with an election at a precinct with no more than ~1500 registered voters. Where those voters are likely of the same political persuasion as the poll workers themselves. High cost, low reward.

To manipulate digital votes you only need to hack one piece of software or bribe/social engineer someone involved close enough with it.

To manipulate paper votes you need to have presence in enough voting booths and influence the votes there.

With paper it might be easier to sneak in a handful of fraudulous votes, but it will be near impossible to commit fraud at a scale that influences the elections. With software it is harder to get that access (although the article shows that one mistake by a dev can make getting access a matter of one hour...), but much easier to then commit election influencing fraud.

The fact that you do not recall any fraud either means it didn't happen (let's hope for the best) or didn't get detected. The latter is obviously very scary.

There's btw more problems with online voting specifically. It's impossible to guarantee the secret of voting. This is not an issue when voting electronically in voting booths.

Voting in the Netherlands is done with pen and paper. This software is used by political parties to generate their candidate lists. It's basically a paper form generator.

Pencil and paper! Voting with a pen invalidates your ballot.

Why?

Not sure, but maybe because a pen leaves a deeper mark that could be visible on the back side when the ballot has been folded. (This is a wild guess.)

Strictly speaking you could use a red pen if you bring one, because a single box filled red is what is required, but almost all voters sensibly use the provided red pencil. Any other colour marks the ballot as invalid.