Empty box is opened in front of multiple witnesses
Voter comes along, name ticked off list of registered voters -- "this person has voted"
Voter given stamped piece of paper with candidates on in front of multiple witnesses.
Voter marks an X next to a name on a paper, folds paper, showing stamp, puts in a box in front of multiple witnesses
Box fills and is then sealed in front of witnesses. Number of votes inside (from the ticking the list) written on.
Box is then transferred to counting place.
Box is unsealed at counting location in front of multiple witnesses
Papers counted to confirm they have a stamp and the number of papers matches the number of votes on the box and accompanying paperwork
Papers transferred to counting table in front of multiple witnesses
Papers counted in front of multiple witnesses
Any confusing ballots set aside to discuss between candidates and the adjudicator
If the vote is close papers are recounted
Winner announced.
This works fine with elections with a turnout measured >30 million people in the UK, which means it works fine for the largest election in the US (California presidential election).
So it's secure, scalable, and cheap
At what point can you commit fraud to a scale where the effort to do it returns more than the effort to campaign for a few more votes?
Voter comes along, name ticked off list of registered voters -- "this person has voted"
Voter given stamped piece of paper with candidates on in front of multiple witnesses.
Voter marks an X next to a name on a paper, folds paper, showing stamp, puts in a box in front of multiple witnesses
Box fills and is then sealed in front of witnesses. Number of votes inside (from the ticking the list) written on.
Box is then transferred to counting place.
Box is unsealed at counting location in front of multiple witnesses
Papers counted to confirm they have a stamp and the number of papers matches the number of votes on the box and accompanying paperwork
Papers transferred to counting table in front of multiple witnesses
Papers counted in front of multiple witnesses
Any confusing ballots set aside to discuss between candidates and the adjudicator
If the vote is close papers are recounted
Winner announced.
This works fine with elections with a turnout measured >30 million people in the UK, which means it works fine for the largest election in the US (California presidential election).
So it's secure, scalable, and cheap
At what point can you commit fraud to a scale where the effort to do it returns more than the effort to campaign for a few more votes?