3 comments

• 

  Gary McGath

  2 years ago

  It's curious that the author thinks having eyes wide open is a fault.
  reply
• 

  MikeT

  2 years ago

  The man either has an agenda or is a blithering idiot. The cost of even perceived corruption in government can be very high WRT undermining the legitimacy of a standing government. If much of the public began to suspect fraud with these machines, it could destabilize the United States, and thus lead to bloodshed in the streets if not corrected in time. That's how more often than not these things are resolved when the public begins to suspect that the government has been 0wn3d.

  
  

  And so what if the human recounting process is still problematic? It is undeniably easier for non-technically educated people to police. Your average beat cop would stand a much better chance of noticing shifty people with paper ballots than with electronic voting machines. The paper ballots here in Virginia are also quite easy. For the life of me, I just don't see what the big deal is about not using voting machines.

  reply
• 

  eee_eff

  2 years ago

  Actually, I had predicted that those e-voting advocates would blame 'human-error' on anything that went wrong (and a lot did go wrong, as we now have a representative from Florida who would not be serving, but for e-voting errors)
  
  But those so-called 'human-errors' are in reality machine-human society interface errors, and to place the blame for all that goes wrong at this interface on humans is wholely wrong. The machines should be designed so these errors can't happen. If they can't be designed to this constraint, they should not be used.
  
  Should we be designing machines for human needs, or should we change the way society works to meet the needs of machines?
  
  (insert "The future doesn't need us." by Bill Joy here.)
  reply