What If Computerized Voting Is Better Than The Alternative?
from the just-asking... dept
There has been a lot of coverage lately of some very prominent folks in the tech world arguing vehemently against the use of computerized voting machines. They point out all the problems with such systems, including no clear way to audit the results and the ease with which they might be hacked. However, one well known computer scientists points out that this is all missing the point. There are problems with current implementations of computerized voting, but, he suggests, it's still much better than paper voting where there are just as many (if not more) ways for politicians to "hack" the election. A well-implemented computer voting system could be useful in preventing many of these tactics. That said, he agrees that the current computerized voting machines in the US are a disaster, and recommends a much more open process for developing such machines.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
