• arrow74@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    On your point about printing off a human readable copy that can be verified manually, you have now invented the worlds most expensive pencil. You’ll always want to verify the manual copy, so why bother with the computer one?

    This way the state can count the votes quickly and if there are any audits they have a physical analog to compare. Honestly if the state just randomly audits 1 county per election to check for issues they will catch anything weird going on and save a tremendous amount of time and money.

    If the audit discovers something weird they can then count up all the paper ballots and fix the software.

    Additionally in 2024 the UK had 28,809,340 votes cast. The US had 158,427,986 votes cast.

    • Zombie@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      40 minutes ago

      Why does the state need to count votes quickly? Votes should be counted accurately, not quickly.

      Total number of votes cast doesn’t really change anything, because total number of counters and witnesses can also be increased relatively. The USA has a 5 times larger population than the UK but that doesn’t mean it takes 5 times longer to count.

      And again, accuracy is more important than speed.

      • arrow74@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        36 minutes ago

        Why does the state need to count votes quickly? Votes should be counted accurately, not quickly.

        You can have both