I suspect all the talk about “better representation” is BS. The real reason was technical - collecting votes from an entire continent was not feasible unless you used some proxies. The electoral collage was established half a century before the telegraph was invented. Today we have computer networks. Direct representation is doable.
Today we have computer networks. Direct representation is doable.
On behalf of the people who would make the software that democracy would depend on, let me direct you to this relevant XKCD which I believe still represents the opinion of most engineers.
The software isn’t the problem. In fact, I think that XKCD is on the wrong path. There are verified coding practices that give high reliability. They tend to be used in aerospace or medical devices where people could die if the code is wrong. The rest of the industry has no good reason to adopt them, though, because they take 10 times as long to do anything.
The real reasons against it are articulated better by Tom Scott, who focuses on the usability aspect. A voting system would have to work for everyone, and writing software to do that while also providing certain security guarantees is difficult.
This is exactly how banks manage money. You still fill out the little withdrawal slip, because you’re legally writing yourself permission to take out the money. If someone ever impersonated you to withdraw money from your account, they would be on camera using your ID or bank card, lying on a form, stealing money through fraud. That’s probably 3 felonies, unless one of them is a misdemeanor.
People do it, but they go to jail for a long time for stealing like $3K. It seems easy, but it’s caught relatively quickly.
I suspect all the talk about “better representation” is BS. The real reason was technical - collecting votes from an entire continent was not feasible unless you used some proxies. The electoral collage was established half a century before the telegraph was invented. Today we have computer networks. Direct representation is doable.
On behalf of the people who would make the software that democracy would depend on, let me direct you to this relevant XKCD which I believe still represents the opinion of most engineers.
That is why you have that reported electronically and physically counted. Results quickly, verified results a little bit later. Compare the two.
The software isn’t the problem. In fact, I think that XKCD is on the wrong path. There are verified coding practices that give high reliability. They tend to be used in aerospace or medical devices where people could die if the code is wrong. The rest of the industry has no good reason to adopt them, though, because they take 10 times as long to do anything.
The real reasons against it are articulated better by Tom Scott, who focuses on the usability aspect. A voting system would have to work for everyone, and writing software to do that while also providing certain security guarantees is difficult.
This is exactly how banks manage money. You still fill out the little withdrawal slip, because you’re legally writing yourself permission to take out the money. If someone ever impersonated you to withdraw money from your account, they would be on camera using your ID or bank card, lying on a form, stealing money through fraud. That’s probably 3 felonies, unless one of them is a misdemeanor.
People do it, but they go to jail for a long time for stealing like $3K. It seems easy, but it’s caught relatively quickly.