> So phrased differently, one of the most important properties of any voting systems is that people afterwards can't just call the result into question.
This is a solved problem with in person voting, I would say that is one thing where South Africa has gotten it down quite well.
There is voter ID at the polls with voter registers to ensure only citizens can vote and nobody can vote twice, vote boxes are sealed and only unsealed with observers present from all parties and international observers, there is also observers at the polling stations from all parties, overall there is nothing to dispute and even in one of the most corrupt countries in the world election results are not disputed because everybody knows it would be absurd to dispute.
Which is precisely the strength of such a system. People often complain about voting being slow — but being slow is a feature not a bug in this case. Better slow and right than fast and wrong.
Definitely, I would have it 10 times slower to increase integrity. I think people that have not lived under despotic regimes maybe don't understand the potential downsides of a loss in election integrity.
This is a solved problem with in person voting, I would say that is one thing where South Africa has gotten it down quite well.
There is voter ID at the polls with voter registers to ensure only citizens can vote and nobody can vote twice, vote boxes are sealed and only unsealed with observers present from all parties and international observers, there is also observers at the polling stations from all parties, overall there is nothing to dispute and even in one of the most corrupt countries in the world election results are not disputed because everybody knows it would be absurd to dispute.