Comment Re:It's weird... (Score 2) 258
And yet, we don't feel we are secure enough to allow people to vote? How the fuck does that make any sense?
Voting should be simple. And by simple I mean low-tech. Canada's system is nearly perfect. Everyone can understand it. Everyone can see how the votes are counted. An observer can watch the voting, can watch the counts. Recounts are easy.
As soon as you make it online, it becomes inscrutable. Even if you design a system with open hardware, open software, etc most people still can't understand it, and can't verify it. And even if they verify the software and hardware, they can't know that's the software and hardware that was actually used, or that it wasn't remotely patched with new software the day of the election, and then patched back after the election. There are ways of securing it... but they are themselves inscrutable, crytopgraphy, digital signatures,
Paper voting is that. You have X paper ballots, each person is handed a ballot, person goes into a booth marks it, and then turns it in. You can see for yourself that the number of voters matches the number of ballots. You can see for your self that the voter puts the ballot in the box. You can watch the box yourself to see its not tampered with. At the end you can watch them take the ballots out of the box, you can watch them be counted, and recounted.
Democracy should be THAT transparent.
NOTHING beats the ease-of-use of and time saving of online voting.
But why on earth would "ease of use" and "time saving" be the most important aspects of choosing the system by which we select our governement?
You propose giving up a voting system even a child can understand and verify for a system that only the elite could even begin to understand, and which would be all but impossible to prove was operating correctly on election day.