> I’m interested to hear your take!

Don’t really have one, I’m more interested in a study of which protocol is more secure, higher integrity. Gut instinct is that voting machines have a longer/stronger audit chain, are automated & don’t get tired. But of course, auditors get tired and aren’t automated, then again, is voting software “really that hard?”. But then again that audit chain could be stupid and expensive and outweigh the benefit.

In either case, machine or human, I hope that there is some kind of consensus algorithm at play.

I understand your points and concerns but I believe you are operating under the assumption that paper ballots must be counted by human auditors. This is not the case. The issue lies not with automated systems, but in a total reliance upon them, without paper fallback.

The system functions ideally like a scantron system for tests — that is , a standardized bubble form (like a ballot), is read by a machine, which tallies the results automatically.

Crucially, however: if the programming or capability of the tallying machine is ever called into question, a paper ballot allows for referencing a physical, inked record of the voter’s original intent, far more immutably than any *purely* digital record could ever be.

Part of this equation is the fact that current systems are all fractured, with control spread across private industry at the state level, and levels of oversight varying wildly (often from election cycle to election cycle). A paper record is helpful to avoid rogue counties/townships/states etc from simply rewriting history as they see fit. On paper? A significant effort to conceal and alter. Digitally? One script. It just depends on who is in control at any given time.

Also: the trouble with a centralized, verifiable database of voter records is that unsavory entities will inevitably figure out how to look people up themselves, leading also inevitably to voter intimidation and suppression, not to mention violence.

So your points are all correct, but the need for a paper record remains, in my opinion. Testing as you suggest would be nice, but I’m also uncertain what it would further prove, given what to me appears to be an obvious logical extrapolation based on present realities.

Thank you for engaging so rigorously, I really do appreciate you taking the time and hope you feel respected in this conversation. I recognize that this is a contentious arena of issues and I have no wish to batter anyone, although I feel strongly about my position.

EDIT: the point I was trying to make (somewhat glibly) with my prior comment was this: paper ballots work, have worked, and will continue to work for the foreseeable future, unchanged. And it’s critical they function as unimpeachably as possible. So why change the system without a clear, significant benefit for doing so? My understanding is that critical programs like nuclear weaponry don’t generally run on modern, connected platforms — older, offline tech is fully known, and often inherently presents less attack surface in a modern world. The same would seem to be true of individual paper ballots, to me.

Yeah I’m not educated on vote counting machines, but thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think I can imagine plenty of paper ballot systems that are fraud resistant, and so I think generally I’d be happy either way. Something that does seem concerning is the electoral college system, perhaps more specifically how the county votes annd state votes are ratified. It seems like a much smaller population than ballot counters (the people who ratify the election results), and if I understand correctly they’re straight up allowed to reject the will of the people. It shouldn’t matter if it’s a majority in favor of or against your candidate, it’s a majority and that needs to be respected. That all needs amending in my opinion. And frankly, I think popular vote should be the decider and well. I get that it would change campaign strategy, but it would also keep parties more middle of the road.