gabriel34
Joined 14 years ago
Joined 14 years ago
The voting machine prints a total for that machine at the same time that the votes are transferred to the central counting, this process is public, the supervisor from each party get a copy of the total, and one copy is publicly affixed at the voting place, so parallel aggregating from the partial counts is possible (and has been done by sampling).
Internal counting on the voting machine is somewhat validated by picking random voting machines out of the voting places and conducting a parallel voting, publicly broadcasted, on which known amount of votes for each candidate are input and the result from the machine is compared to the expected. Only thing missing that I can think of is actually doing this parallel voting on the same time and place the voting was expected to take place.
n.b. I have not delved deeply into the claims or the sources
[1] https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/gme/advanced-c... select log scale, period=max
1. It may reduce societal pressure to isolate by making it seem only a minority of people are actually doing it (much like the broken windows theory)
2. It fuels distrust in media outlets. Deservingly so, even if machiavellianly this choice seems to serve the greater good.