> even children can understand how to count and monitor them
Except they have no error correction and admit ambiguity as to a voter's intent. That's all great and theoretical, but the inability of some voters in 2000 in Florida to fully punch a paper ballot led to a recount that under some scenarios would have led to President Al Gore rather than President George W. Bush.
Maybe the occasional hanging chad is worth the other positive attributes of paper, but don't write off all the advantages of an electronic system (error correct, instant results, etc).
With the utmost respect, you can screw up anything. The florida voting paper and damn hole punching was and remains utterly crazy. Obviously so to the overwhelming majority of people in a way that anything electronic isn't and will never be.
"This is really bad form design, look at this layout" - she said pointing to the piece of paper she was holding. Most people can assess the merit of that argument, and in the case of Florida, have done so in a reasonable manner - whatever their conclusion.
"This is a bad electronic system" - 99% of people have to trust an authority to even begin to form a view on that which makes disinformation and propaganda of the usual kind, ie advertising and lobbying, more effective than it deserves to be based on merit alone. Now that's fine for soda purchases but not good enough to trust your democracy to.
> the inability of some voters in 2000 in Florida to fully punch a paper ballot
Blame the user?
The fault lies with the election administrator who had not followed procedures and properly cleared the voting machines of chads from prior elections.
> don't write off all the advantages of an electronic system (error correct, instant results, etc)
None of which are true. The sole advantage to electronic voting systems is to expedite the transfer of public monies to cronies. Well, a second advantage is to obfuscate the whole process.
This is an incredibly salient point, because the conspiracy theorist in me screams that it was intentional in order to sway public opinion in favor of electronic voting machines, in order to let Them fix elections. I truly believe the whole scheme of electronic voting is intended to defraud the public of their right to vote.
You can simply and easily do instant results by using an optical scan voting system: ballots are scanned as they are submitted by the voter to the ballot box.
Except they have no error correction and admit ambiguity as to a voter's intent. That's all great and theoretical, but the inability of some voters in 2000 in Florida to fully punch a paper ballot led to a recount that under some scenarios would have led to President Al Gore rather than President George W. Bush.
Maybe the occasional hanging chad is worth the other positive attributes of paper, but don't write off all the advantages of an electronic system (error correct, instant results, etc).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...