this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
153 points (95.8% liked)

Ask Lemmy

32476 readers
2559 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I keep seeing comments about how Canada avoided a similar fate because of its strict use of paper ballots; the US must have changed its system to include these electronic and possibly not airgapped machines.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 6 points 12 hours ago

paper ballots

Just FYI, I think most, or at least every voting machine I've used in GA, actually prints a paper ballot that then is read by a machine (or maybe a human, not entirely sure).

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean they're immune to some sort of foul play. I always triple check my choices and triple check the printed ballot. But is there some sort of nefarious trickery in some machine readable only part of it? Perhaps. I personally don't think there is, but who knows. I'd love to be proved wrong. I'd love to see the fascists suffer.

To be 100% clear, I don't think there isn't foul play going on, I'm just skeptical that it's specifically in the voting/counting machines, but I haven't also read up on the most recent of claims from the past few weeks about it.

[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 14 points 19 hours ago (3 children)

Remember the hanging Chad fiasco? After that Congress appropriated money for a digital solution, but did literally no work to standardize or ensure ethics. So a bunch of shit companies bid bottom dollar and got the contracts.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 14 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I remember my country using such machines for some elections before they were considered as incompatible with democracy. We vote on paper again, which is good.

[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago

Same here, we're still voting on paper, and I hope that never changes without good reason.

[–] AlexisFR@jlai.lu 9 points 20 hours ago

How are you going to implement managed democracy?

[–] Nemo@midwest.social 27 points 1 day ago

Each voting district sets its own methods; different areas have different laws. It's a mess.

[–] throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 5 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

They switched to machines to that

  1. Its easier to create conspiracy theories about "stolen election" even when there isn't.

  2. If you now rig the election, the losing side (who legitimately won before) will seem like conspiracy theorists for claiming fraud, even if the election was indeed stolen.

Congrats, the people are now fighting each other while the rich can use the ensuing violence as a pretense to enact more authoritarian laws!

[–] Glitch@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's gotta be a distraction from gerrymandering and other more provable fuckery

[–] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 1 points 15 hours ago

Yes. Exactly. Votes are counted accurately, and then carefully grouped (gerrymandered) to prevent public opinion from influencing the planned election outcome.

[–] Photuris@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 day ago (11 children)

100% we need to switch back to entirely paper ballots, even if it takes months to determine a winner.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Where I live, we have voting machines with a paper receipt. Voters use a touchscreen and then get a printed ballot. The voter can then check to make sure that what they cast electronically is correct, and then the paper ballot is scanned and saved. You can perform an audit anytime you like to compare the instant electronic results to hand counted ballots.

[–] Acamon@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I don't understand why it's so difficult. In France voting is done entirely on paper and results are often released later that night, and almost all the results are in by the next day. Same in the UK, although it generally takes them a few hours longer, probably because the polls close later in the evening.

[–] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I’ve been trying to get people to think about using the British or French ways of counting ballots.

But I was confused why I made so little progress in the USA.

I finally decided it was cultural. There was something about Americans I did not understand. After a few more years I realized it was people who were politically active , and the journalists who reported on politics, who had this filter, or taboo about addressing any of this.

For example, if you talk to disenfranchised blacks in rural east Texas, they readily understand and agree. But if you talk to black progressive activists in Texas, they have the filter. Same for poor white fundamentalists in my area and their conservative representatives.

So, I think it’s more the price of admission to politics now, than anything else. And those who cannot ignore don’t participate at all

[–] Acamon@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Is it just a sacred cow? "you can't change anything about voting"? Or do they believe in some specific obstacle? I was discussing this with a friend recently, and the only guess as to why it wouldn't work in America is that it requires a reasonable number of volunteers, and maybe Americans are too busy working insane hours and surviving to add civic responsibilities.

[–] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 20 hours ago

That is a great question, and one I spent hundreds of hours thinking about. I still don’t really know about the answer.

I have some fragments.

I think it is a deep rooted cultural thing we are talking about here. One that is generations old and will continue for generations more. Also America is a huge country and for each thing I mention here , there is some areas not doing that .

Most Americans who vote, trust the counting of their votes, and the more obscure the vote counting is, the more they trust it. In other words if they are completely baffled by how it works, they will believe in it. And they are told by a father or mother figure that it’s accurate, then they will go along with it, without questions.

Americans are like Russians in that large segments of their cultural elite don’t understand democracy. But it’s the American flavor. They understand voting, but there it stops. There is no instinct with most voters that participation is only half of democracy , the other part is counting. They distrust simple counting like mail in ballots but fully participate in the most convoluted vote counting with childlike faith and hope.

Many fundamentally do not understand that counting can be simple and done to the satisfaction of all participants, even if they do not like the results.

So when one suggests paper ballots counted in front of people, allowing recounts for any reason. It’s challenging faith itself.

[–] Supervisor194@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

This is a way for the monied class to deflect criticism about the country's various failures to improve the situation for their citizens. Like healthcare, when you suggest that you want to do it like they do it in, say... Scandinavia, you always get a wave of a hand and a vaguely worded "yes well, this country is just too big for that. <insert country here> can only get away with that because of their tiny, homogenous population."

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 3 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

In California we're all mailed paper ballots, which we can return by mail (no stamp needed) or designated ballot box, or in person at a polling place up to closing time on Voting Day. My ballot (in a westside Los Angeles district) had 37 items, (on about 7 pages iirc) some of which were yes/no on propositions, others of which had a choice between 2 to 15 candidates for various offices. From school board to US President. It was very clear, just needed a black pen to fill the circles, and I could have gotten it in a dozen different languages. It's also accessible for my quadriplegic husband, who can't get to a polling place. But it took time and thought. It wasn't like the pictures I've seen of French ballots which were just a single name on a sheet of paper, take the one from the stack of your choice, I guess? So counting them takes more time. Plus counting ballots that were mailed and postmarked by the deadline, those are allowed 2 weeks to arrive.

*(A couple of edits to clarify details)

[–] tamal3@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

I heard Ireland does too, but they also use Rank Voice Voting so it takes them about a week. Seems like a potential benefit that the process of democracy is so visible, imo.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Some places have hybrid machines; an electronic interface but gives you a printout of your choices (like a Scantron form filler). I'm fine with this option so long as hardcopies are preserved for 2 years minimum and randomized checks are performed before and after an election on EVERY machine.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Kansas has the hybrid style so I fill out a paper ballot and it is scanned and the results tabulated electronically with a paper trail for auditing. This actually seems even more reliable to me than only paper or electronic with printed out copies for a paper trail.

[–] kersploosh@sh.itjust.works 3 points 21 hours ago

Same here. Paper ballots that can be machine scanned and stored for manual audits seem like the best possible method.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Coyote_sly@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Washington uses paper ballots absentee only and only needs more than a few hours to figure out results unless there's a very tight race.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Bush the elder laid the groundwork for the current systems while president in the 1990s. People he knew got the first contacts soon after, . And then when they were used in Texas in 1995 the state started to switch from democratic to republican and his son won the governorship. Many southern states switched the first year they were used.

What distinguishes the American voting experience from other democracies is

that these systems are closed source and protected by intellectual secrets legally. There is no public knowledge of administers with access keys or any other of the hundreds of details that are addressed in the Baltic states

there is no curiosity about the above by most politically active people. There used to be loud tech community responses about all this, even conventions. But by ten years ago these were effectively ignored.

when the republicans claim cheating by this, they only stay in conspiracy mode and never try to use technical help in explaining why these are bad to have.

the democrats react to the above and fully embrace the voting machines despite having no clue how they work or are monitored, and a new type of bogus technical experts have become accepted to explain how this is all very safe. Again with no talk to most of the hardware or software community

there is an effort to use paper ballots and were having some success but this was sidelined by the 2020 election denial fallout

[–] gramie@lemmy.ca 7 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

There's also a difference, because our elections typically have only a few races on them. In other words, at the federal level I only vote for the candidates in my writing. Typically four to six options.

In a us election, there can be a ballot containing choices for many different levels, including judges, district attorneys, and so on. Not to mention they might have several referenda on the same ballot too.

I could see that being much more complex on paper, making electronic voting attractive.

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 5 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Still that's a solved problem. You just use different color coded papers for each item that has to be voted on.

I really don't get the US's difficulties with paper votes. It's so easy to understand literal preschoolers can understand it. I know because our children voted on meal choices in preschool every time an election happened in Germany.

It's super transparent. You can just watch the counts or even count them yourself if you doubt them.

It's fast. If you have enough voting districts counting takes an hour or two. Maybe a few more if you have a big district with many different issues to vote on.

Almost everyone can understand how it works. Even many literally mentally disabled people. I find this to be the most compelling argument for paper voting. You leave noone behind. It's a super simple concept to grasp that reaches every citizen. But with electronic voting you need to have a degree in computer science to understand that it is not transparent at all what is happening inside the machine.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

GOP can use actors, like russia and now elon to change/hack the machines to vote in thier favor. this is more prevelant in red areas than blue ones. Remember mitch mcconnels last election, he had the same exact situation, more people voted blue in those areas, but somehow the votes still went to mitch.

[–] bieren@lemmy.zip 7 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

We did it cause money. And lobbying. Same thing.

[–] Zarxrax@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

I guess it varies by jurisdiction. In my state we fill out paper ballots, then you just insert the ballot into a machine which records your votes and prints you a receipt.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 3 points 23 hours ago

I’ve honestly liked the systems we have in our county. They’re a digital system but you feed in a straight sheet and it reads your district. From there you select on a touch screen all of your selections and then print it out. You have a chance to review the ballot at that point to make sure everything is printed out right. You then slide it into another scanner which counts the votes and drops the ballot into a secured box, that way should they need to audit things you have a paper trail too.