WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

120

(post is archived)

[–] 3 pts

If it can be compromised, it is compromised, so no.

[–] 3 pts

No.

[–] 2 pts

That didn't take long. KEK.

[–] 2 pts

It's an easy question to answer.

[–] 1 pt

eliminate error-prone manual processes to help ensure election transparency for constituents

Ummm... from what I gather, machine counted votes have a 1488% error rate. Looks to me like we need to take leap back and count votes by hand.

[–] 1 pt

It's very easy to make ballots that are nearly tamper-proof, but you'll never see one because they don't want tamper-proof ballots. It's pretty easy to make sure ballots can't be printed after the fact, but you'll never see that either.

[–] 0 pt

A quick and effective strategy is to simply serialize them. When you detect 2 ballots with the same number, you void both. And you are correct. You'll never see that. It will disenfranchise voters, don't you know.

[–] 1 pt

You don't want to use predictable numbering, though. If you did a nefarious actor could cancel out votes from precincts know to vote a certain way just by injecting duplicate ballots into the system to cause them to be rejected.

[–] 1 pt

No vote is ever counted via any method... How about that? They just pick a guy they want. It's all fake.