• Halosheep@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    You don’t have me convinced and I genuinely don’t understand how this could be the popular opinion. You absolutely can’t convince me that with a well designed system it would be easy to cheat when compared to a piece of paper.

    Why the hell would software need to be more complex than a few text lines that store the results of your selections? An amateur coder could create a simple multiple choice selection system in an afternoon.

    Why does anything other than a local network need to be involved? It can literally function similarly to paper ballots and have a central recipient machine that collects the results that is then handed over to a ballot authority. Please keep going on for hours about the flaws instead of simplifying the problem.

    A machine that is sitting in a voting hall is as easily tampered with as a paper ballot, and it’s not going to be done by the average person. Anyone who could manipulate these machines could figure out how to mess with a paper ballot.

    You can’t ‘run out’ of a digital vote. You can’t ‘miscount’ a digital vote. If both methods have issues, why choose the one that is OBVIOUSLY easier to manipulate? Oops! Someone misplaced the piece of paper you put in. The year is 2024 and all of the possible issues you’ve just brought up can be solved but it seems that it would be way too easy to actually have accurate vote counts and one less voter suppression tactic in the pocket of shady governments, so they won’t.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      You absolutely can’t convince me that with a well designed system

      Why in the world do you think we would have a well-designed system?

    • Jyek@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Then why don’t you create that system?

      And then proceed to convince every American that it is good and reliable and will work because it only takes a vocal few to stir question about it. And it only takes a single person finding a small flaw that can probably skew results. And that one flaw that allows someone smarter than you or I, has the power to throw question into our already shaky political system. And you as the producer of the system are entirely liable.

      We are already fighting about trust in our voting system, to add the complexity of computerized systems is not going to sway the vast majority of people.

      You can’t ‘miscount’ a digital vote.

      Yes you absolutely can. Look up flipped bits, look up rounding errors. Look up lossy data. Look up bit overflow. There are many many ways computers miscount things. Hell, many calculators have incongruent output to each other because they do math in a slightly different system.

      • FierySpectre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Look up flipped bits

        Those are easy to mitigate, even on a hardware level… But of you really needed to you could even do it on a software level.

        Look up rounding errors

        For integer numbers… Suuuure

        Look up lossy data

        What the fuck does compression have to do with this? Guess you needed to pad your text

        Look up bit overflow

        Even a 32bit processor will not overflow unless you go above 2 billion, and even if you were using 16 bits, that’s what the overflow bit is here to indicate… And if you’re coding using anything but assembly this isn’t anything you need to worry about

        There are genuine concerns with digital voting, but you’re missing every single one of them with this response.

        • Jyek@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          My point was not that these examples are issues to be concerned with in a voting system. Instead I was pointing out that computers fail at counting all the time. It’s also not even my full argument. You dissected one portion of my response and still missed the point I was making.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Sadly we live in an age where non-tech people, a bit like LLMs do, can say all those words and not understand them.

          I genuinely think using PDP-11 level (in feel, can be more performant) machines as our PCs (with hardware accelerators for cryptography, some sound and some graphics) would be beneficial for the humanity. Limit them to things they can use differently from a squirrel using a wheel.