21st century election using 19th century voting

@_Samantha_ Said

I know f*** all about computers. But how do military defence networks stay secure then?

@jonnythan Said

They often don't, actually.

But most of the critical systems are simply not connected to the internet. They are run over private networks.

@_Samantha_ Said

Ok, so don't make it internet based then. Just have a digi network to speed up the counting and make it private. What's wrong with that?

@crazychica Said

With difficulty. They're almost constantly under attack at some point or another. Same goes for government computer networks. Sometimes it's for kicks, other times it's a form of protest or to try to gather information. Also since they have the capability of sending and receiving large number of emails, infecting a government computer system is a good way of spreading your virus or malware.

@jonnythan Said

The creator could even spend some time distributing the virus and infecting literally millions of home computers. We know this is easy to do already.

Then, with 5 million computers at his disposal, he could shop around the voting to the various parties.

"I'll start the bidding at $20 million. Tories, are you willing to offer 25?"

@_Samantha_ Said

This is paranoia though. if they can do that, then they can rig paper counts too.

@_Samantha_ Said

This is paranoia though. if they can do that, then they can rig paper counts too.

@jonnythan Said

First you need to create the private network - you're talking about a nationwide network that reaches every locality.

$20 billion. Single-purpose private network to be used once every several years.

Now, you need to set up digital polling stations. Hundreds of millions of dollars to set up, staff, and secure. The private network doesn't go to anyone's home, so people still need to drag their asses out of their house and go vote at some computer at this network access location.

Is this the best way to solve the problem of people getting turned away after the polls close?

Networked digital voting is not the answer. Streamlining the process and allowing people who line up before closing time to cast their vote is the answer. Billions and billions of dollars cheaper, more secure, more verifiable, easier, and more easily recountable.

Digital networked voting is simply not the best solution to the problem. It's not even a solution at all.

@crazychica Said

Not as easily. When you go to vote you go in and don't even show the presiding officer your vote. It goes straight in the box. The boxes are pretty closely watched to keep it fair. Also, you get one ballot paper and one ballot paper only. If you spoil that paper you have to give it to the presiding officer so he can verify that it's spoiled before you get a new one.

@_Samantha_ Said

I meant the counting. If like Jonnythan says parties will pay for digital corruption, then whats to stop them paying counters of paper votes to miscount?

@jonnythan Said

It's orders of magnitude harder. How is one determined person, or even a hundred determined people, going to break into tens of thousands of polling locations across the country and alter millions of individual paper votes?

@_Samantha_ Said

They dont. A party wants to swing the vote, it rigs the staff.