Letter: At least you can't hack into a ballot box
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Bob Young (letter, 15 May), extols the "Theatre of the Count", and his comments on the visible checks and balances provided by paper ballots are pertinent.
Further points differentiate electronic and paper voting. Running totals physically exist throughout electronic voting, but not in a ballot box. While this is irrelevant for public voting in a debating chamber, there is potential for abuse in general elections with polling open for 15 hours.
It is not simply that the result might be faked. Mere detection of running totals would be of immense value to party machines: workers could be deployed with absolute certainty; voters might be influenced. Millions are already expended in the pursuit of power - what might an unscrupulous party spend to detect an electronic count?
KEN BLANSHARD,
Burgess Hill, West Sussex
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments