Right, but I don't think we should glamorize old-style paper voting either. Yes, it is easier for an observer to spot that something fishy is going on, but it is also easy for authorities to dismiss it as insubstantial. Someone obstructed your view of the ballot box for a few seconds? Sorry, that was an accident. Police evicted you from the poll station? Better behave yourself next time. You saw a blatant incident of fraud and you have hard evidence? Well sure, local officials went a bit over the line, we'll cancel the results of that particular poll station. Our candidate still wins.
My impression from fraud reports from Russian elections is that most fraud occured at the local level (where no one was able to precisely quantify it) and from the point the data was inserted into the centralized database everything was squeaky clean.
So maybe some kind of a centralized panopticon surveillance system that the FAAMG are so fond of is just the right fit for elections.
If it was something that was done at local level, not in conspiracy with central government, then why the investigations in cases of election fraud are so ineffective, and even if the case gets to the court, it typically ends with just a fine? If the central government didn't have relation to the fraud, they would prefer to punish local officials, yet they try to avoid doing it.
Instead, they warn heads of regions that the results of election in their region might affect their evaluation.
Regarding things you have described, they are possible with electronic voting as well. Hashes not matching? You probably made a mistake, verify again, our experts say that everything is correct.
Also, for an average person, seeing a video recording with officials throwing a pack of ballots into the box is easier to understand than some difficult calculations with hashes.
> If it was something that was done at local level, not in conspiracy with central government, then why the investigations in cases of election fraud are so ineffective, and even if the case gets to the court, it typically ends with just a fine? If the central government didn't have relation to the fraud, they would prefer to punish local officials, yet they try to avoid doing it. Instead, they warn heads of regions that the results of election in their region might affect their evaluation.
Maybe I misunderstood your phrasing but that's precisely what enables large-scale fraud. High-ranking officials can maintain plausible deniability by outsourcing fraud to the local level and doing nothing overt themselves. If low-level officials are caught, they suffer token punishment because some semblance of rule of law must be maintained (but punishment cannot be too strict because they were doing what they were supposed to do).
> Regarding things you have described, they are possible with electronic voting as well. Hashes not matching? You probably made a mistake, verify again, our experts say that everything is correct.
Right, but if you have evidence that say 10% of votes are tainted, it is something worth fighting for and going to the streets for. Whereas if all you have is a recording of a handful of ballots thrown into a box at some poll station in rural Yakutia, well who cares about a few 100s of ballots? You can try to string a few of these videos together to provoke an emotional reaction but it will subside quickly as public attention will be redirected to the next outrage du jour.
My impression from fraud reports from Russian elections is that most fraud occured at the local level (where no one was able to precisely quantify it) and from the point the data was inserted into the centralized database everything was squeaky clean.
So maybe some kind of a centralized panopticon surveillance system that the FAAMG are so fond of is just the right fit for elections.