
The Only Safe Election Is a Low-Tech Election - mterrel
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/04/technology/election-tech.html
======
isaaafc
Summary of why e-voting is bad:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI)

A newer video basically reiterating the points:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs)

------
jeffrallen
I work on e-voting systems and I approve of this message.

~~~
tunap
Having worked on Accuvotee systems in the past, I concur. However, live feeds
of the hand count are an absolute must. Teh shenanigans(criteria to throw out
votes) that occurs behind closed doors needs exposure scrutiny.

~~~
funcDropShadow
In Germany, every citizen is allowed to watch the counting at his local
election buro. I think that is what is needed, and the larger parties send one
member to every single room where counting is happening. So you need to
involve a lot of people if you want to forge an election at scale.

------
kitpierce
I’m all for paper backups/verification of voting systems, but perhaps it’s
time to consider open-source election software w peer review and/or open-
hardware in addition to “low-tech” election oversight?

------
foxyv
Low-Tech elections are fraught with similar perils. Paper votes can be forged,
discarded, modified and cloned as easy as pie. Not to mention impersonation of
voters, theft of mail in ballots and registration of deceased voters. Then
again, a single person cannot modify the results of an entire election. In
addition the risk of being caught is greater because you are doing these
things in person.

------
EricE
Duh!

Thumb (or other finger) in ink, ink on paper, done.

Highly resilient to all kinds of attacks. Drop dead simple.

Less is more.

