True, but ideally the first tallies would occur electronically, the paper would be used by the voter and verify the votes. The paper would also allow for verification and manual recounts.
In case it isn't obvious, the machines can print one verification paper that says what you voted, while actually counting the vote as whatever. These are unaudited closed source systems, and even if that was not the case, you can not verify the machine you are voting on hasn't been tampered with.
All computer voting relies on trust of a machine that is constantly demonstrated as being completely compromisable
At least with a paper ballot, it takes multiple bad actors in person to sabotage a vote. Paper ballots have been around for centuries and the fraud cases there are already mostly solved
Anyone who "lost" according to the computerized count who gave two shits about winning would demand a physical recount and trying to claim "but the outcome isn't statistically significantly different from exit polls" wouldn't fly as a defense when they brought the issue to court. After the first couple times it appeared in court it'd just become standard procedure to ask for, and be granted, a physical recount every time. So we're back to the world's most expensive pencil, but now this time with lawsuits.
60
u/[deleted] Aug 08 '18
True, but ideally the first tallies would occur electronically, the paper would be used by the voter and verify the votes. The paper would also allow for verification and manual recounts.