The instant you refuse to allow public watching of poll counting is the instant you know it's being abused. There is ZERO reason to not allow poll watching to the public, unless you intend to cheat.
For the purpose of devil's advocate, I could say that cost could be a factor, since the data entry could be additional work.
That said, I think that Taiwan has a pretty good system, where every vote is held up for the watchers to see and the vote announced to be tallied. There's no reason to not do something similar and adding a camera for both a recording and a livestream is virtually nothing in terms of additional cost.
Obviously there are other security & software engineering concerns. But objecting to the basic ask here not justifiable when every single poll worker has a cell phone camera in their pocket.
It's kind of absurd anyway to object to the cost given the billions / trillions at stake in US Federal elections. There are more sophisticated security systems on stupid game microtransactions than on the election, not sure what calculus figures that voting is worse less security than horse armor.
Plus in reality such a system probably saves a shit ton in litigation and fraud.
I don't necessarily disagree, though the standards aren't going to simply be a basic photo, it's going to be proper scanning. And while there are mass scanning options with office-grade printers, it does still take some effort. Personally, I just think the recording is a simpler, easier solution that doesn't impede anyone else nor make addition effort for another. It removes any reason for them to not do the task, while the other idea does at least give them something to bitch about.
You're also not wrong with what's at stake financially so cost shouldn't be as big a concern as it typically is. Sadly though, it will be used to resist legitimate measures to ensure proper vote security.
The instant you refuse to allow public watching of poll counting is the instant you know it's being abused. There is ZERO reason to not allow poll watching to the public, unless you intend to cheat.
Additionally there's zero reason why every ballot should not be photographed, recorded, and independently auditable to anyone.
For the purpose of devil's advocate, I could say that cost could be a factor, since the data entry could be additional work.
That said, I think that Taiwan has a pretty good system, where every vote is held up for the watchers to see and the vote announced to be tallied. There's no reason to not do something similar and adding a camera for both a recording and a livestream is virtually nothing in terms of additional cost.
Sure, acknowledge that. At the same time:
Obviously there are other security & software engineering concerns. But objecting to the basic ask here not justifiable when every single poll worker has a cell phone camera in their pocket.
It's kind of absurd anyway to object to the cost given the billions / trillions at stake in US Federal elections. There are more sophisticated security systems on stupid game microtransactions than on the election, not sure what calculus figures that voting is worse less security than horse armor.
Plus in reality such a system probably saves a shit ton in litigation and fraud.
I don't necessarily disagree, though the standards aren't going to simply be a basic photo, it's going to be proper scanning. And while there are mass scanning options with office-grade printers, it does still take some effort. Personally, I just think the recording is a simpler, easier solution that doesn't impede anyone else nor make addition effort for another. It removes any reason for them to not do the task, while the other idea does at least give them something to bitch about.
You're also not wrong with what's at stake financially so cost shouldn't be as big a concern as it typically is. Sadly though, it will be used to resist legitimate measures to ensure proper vote security.