@mattblaze

The only good solution I know is to have a physical box, have everyone check that it's empty, have all the ballot papers put in the box by voters while everyone watches, then shuffle the papers, then take them out and count them while everyone watches.

@davidgerard @brainwagon @neroden What on earth makes you think ensuring the integrity of voting in Australia (or anywhere else) is simple or easy?

There's more to election integrity than the vote-casting technology, and most of the hard properties on my list have nothing to do with computers.

But you're the expert.

@mattblaze @davidgerard @brainwagon

Again, I'm glad you recognize that I'm the expert and you're not. I only know what I know because I've worked with expert election integrity organizations.

I'm not sure why you're asking weird questions though -- of course it's difficult.

Most of the hard properties on your list have been analyzed for *centuries* and we know pretty solid solutions with the physical ballot box and precinct-level counting and election observers.

@mattblaze @davidgerard @brainwagon

Look, I don't want to be rude, but you are being really weird.

I see you're one of the many, many advisors to Verified Voting, whose work I've always respected... and who keeps coming down in favor of in-precinct counting, physical ballot boxes (for the secret ballot), and precinct-level observers.

However, I have probably studied the *history* of elections at least as much as you have. I don't see much of a non-CS record for you.