elections have stayed safe because they are distributed and local.
No, see - you can use exactly the same structure for issuing voter IDs as you currently use for issuing a list of registered voters. You can have districts collect ballots and submit their results, exactly the same as we do now.
This process is no more “centralized.” The only difference is that it is now verifiable - publicly! - without sacrificing anonymity. When statistical anomalies arise, you can actually audit the process - instead of what we have now, which is: everyone shrugs their shoulders and accepts the result anyway.
In person paper ballots and voting by mail are not broken. let’s not try to fix them.
If they “are not broken,” then why is there lingering doubt over the results of every election - going as far back as 2000?
Why do so many Americans think that elections are “rigged?”
Why do we come across evidence of statistical anomalies, in every major election, that we absolutely cannot investigate - because the process itself is vulnerable to manipulation in ways that can’t be investigated?
And as I noted above - even if the elections aren’t rigged, no one can prove it - because, again, it’s all centrally based on trust without proof.
You accept the inherent vulnerabilities of paper ballots because people tell you that computers are scary. Do you think that computers are scary when you conduct your banking over the internet? Or buy stuff from e-commerce sites, or submit your taxes? Or access your health records or your 401k? No, you conduct all of those most sensitive transactions via a computer. Yet, when it comes to voting, computers are suddenly scary and untrustworthy because… why?
