You're missing the point so bad, I'm beginning to think you're a liberal
They're the masters of missing the point (either as a result of insufficient IQ or a deliberate attempt at obfuscation.)
It may not mean it CAN'T be anonymous, but it certainly assures that it no longer HAS to be.
That, Mr. I-think-you-are-a-liberal, IS the point.
And, if someone wants you to vote a certain way, and asks you to prove it, there's nothing they can do right now.
But there sure is if there's a hard copy available...
Don't strain your thinking there, LD. I've certainly got a longer track record here than you do.
And, if someone wants you to vote a certain way, and asks you to prove it, there's nothing they can do right now.
But there sure is if there's a hard copy available...
And if they try to do so, then you tell them to f.o. and report them for vote tampering.
Without a hard copy, all that needs to happen to have electronic vote fraud is to type a few lines of code. An algorerithm that switches one in fifty votes to the RAT party could swing an election faster than you can say "hanging chad". One thing the digital age has taught us is that counterfeit electronic files are perfect forgeries, and with no other record of the actual vote cast, the results are unauditable.
The procedure could be this: you vote on screen. A paper ballot is printed. You double check for accuracy right there. Confirm the screen, which files an electronic tally. You then drop the paper ballot backup into a ballot box at the polling site, which is then handled like a punch ballot. Then, if hanky-panky happens, the electronic record and the paper records can be x-checked. If they don't agree, then that is evidence of tampering.