Re:Public Trust Demands Open-Source Voting Systems
by like_any_other on Wednesday October 22, 2025 @03:09AM
(#45665774)
Pharaos had to run a footrace to prove they were still fit to rule, meanwhile we sacrifice the security of our voting system so that the most feeble and feeble-minded among us can vote. In some countries even the most disinterested and uninformed in politics are legally compelled to vote. Then we complain how foolishly the public votes, and how easily they are swayed.
What a farce.
Re:Public Trust Demands Open-Source Voting Systems
by rstuart4133 on Wednesday October 22, 2025 @04:09AM
(#45666141)
[delayed]
Re:Public Trust Demands Open-Source Voting Systems
by Terr_ on Wednesday October 22, 2025 @05:02AM
(#45666486)
Hardly: History shows the repeated failure of the alternative, where only the "qualified" may vote.
Terrible people just corrupt the qualification-mechanism instead. That evil tactic tends to be more-effective and longer-lasting than trying to appeal to the lazy-stupid vote.
Re:Public Trust Demands Open-Source Voting Systems
by like_any_other on Friday October 24, 2025 @03:57AM
(#45692068)
> only the "qualified" may vote
You think this is a fair characterization of what I wrote? That it not being worth sacrificing the security of a voting system to get the most disinterested and incapable to vote, is equivalent to some unstated "qualification" test?
You didn't define how paper ballots are better. Given that many electronic systems print paper ballots, I'm not sure how they could be said to be universally better.
Electronic ballots can be much better than paper in two ways. Firstly, they are faster to count. I'm not sure why that matters, but it's true and seem people seem to think knowing the outcome quickly is important.
Far more importantly to me: they are easier to use. In Australia we have compulsory voting. A lot of attention is paid to how many votes are invalid. It currently runs at 5%, but ranges up to 10% in areas with lower education levels or non-English speaking. Voting machines can tell you verify if the vote is valid, help you if they aren't, provide information from the candidates if you want to know more.
One the downside, a poorly designed voting machine can be far less secure than out current paper system. Sadly, I don't think I've seen proprietary voting voting machine that didn't have significant design flaws. Making the situation worse is the voting machine companies like to keep their flaws well hidden (flaws aren't good for sales). In Australia, we've had examples of the Australian Electoral Commission perusing academic researchers in the courts for revealing flaws. [0] Mandating open source mandate is a solution to that.
https://www.unimelb.edu.au/newsroom/news/2019/november/flaws...