Well, it's true we don't have "faith" in technology. We insist on testing it rigorously and making sure it works. But it's certainly strange to consider people "luddites" for that reason.
relaxandhavefun
· 2 years ago
It goes further, in that techies are divided between those who (looking at it solely as a technical problem) seek desperately needed improvements to a flawed voting process, and other techies who, applying also (and sensibly) the standards of democracy and elections to computerized voting systems, wonder how in the world having secret vote counting on the first counts released on election night can possibly be consistent with We the People being in charge of this Country, instead of the corporate vote counting software-makers.
The ability of computers to replicate and multiply information with ease means that electronic ballots can be stolen or manipulated in volumes never before possible with paper. And the major danger comes from insiders (election officials) just as with embezzlement being a top risk in business theft. Traditional computer security protocols leave the keys to the firewall in the hands of "trusted insiders" but with elections there ARE NO trusted insiders: a successful election criminal becomes an election official or other official who makes election policy. Instead, american systems are based on checks and balances (institutionalized DIStrust) but trade secret software makes checks and balances impossible.
In the end, computers make vote counting invisible and the magic election numbers that result we have no rational basis for confidence in. even the elections officials don't see either the count or the code, regardless of whether its a touch screen or optical scan system.
So, while computers are great for many things, and may be required to help the disabled vote, putting technology between a voter and their ballot is inviting fraud at unprecedented levels. Especially since control of the world's richest country and sole military superpower is at stake with those ballots, there's all the reason in the world NOT to be naive about the possiblities.
All Comments
The ability of computers to replicate and multiply information with ease means that electronic ballots can be stolen or manipulated in volumes never before possible with paper. And the major danger comes from insiders (election officials) just as with embezzlement being a top risk in business theft. Traditional computer security protocols leave the keys to the firewall in the hands of "trusted insiders" but with elections there ARE NO trusted insiders: a successful election criminal becomes an election official or other official who makes election policy. Instead, american systems are based on checks and balances (institutionalized DIStrust) but trade secret software makes checks and balances impossible.
In the end, computers make vote counting invisible and the magic election numbers that result we have no rational basis for confidence in. even the elections officials don't see either the count or the code, regardless of whether its a touch screen or optical scan system.
So, while computers are great for many things, and may be required to help the disabled vote, putting technology between a voter and their ballot is inviting fraud at unprecedented levels. Especially since control of the world's richest country and sole military superpower is at stake with those ballots, there's all the reason in the world NOT to be naive about the possiblities.