(02-05-2020 01:19 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-05-2020 12:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I completely disagree with your assertion. No system is perfect, regardless of how well-designed and properly tested it is. Because of the inherent imperfectness, a paper backup system allows for an actual paper trail that doesn't rely on databases, apps, computers, etc.

I don't recall the name of this fallacy (it's related to perfect is the enemy of good).

Quote:All you're arguing for in the last example is being less prepared. If it is not overly burdensome to have paper ballot back ups, why argue against it? To the oil example, while many people may not carry extra oil, plenty carry spare tires in case of an emergency flat.

I'm not arguing for being less prepared, I'm arguing against being overly prepared. "Overly burdensome" is a highly subjective term. Paper backups are a waste of my time and money, just like carrying motor oil in my car would be a waste. Therefore, in this tax payer's opinion, it's overly burdensome. I get that you disagree, so I won't argue it further, any more than I will with the people at work who still keep file drawers full of hard copies of everything because a long time ago we had to worry about the only electronic copy being lost if our desktop hard drive crashed.

I view it differently than just having a backup file.

A paper backup allows for at least a confirmation of data transfer and receipt, as well as a backup.

If you think about the personal file example, people know where their data is saved, when it is saved, you can access it again to confirm that the data is correct, and any good company does routine backups of the data. With electronic only voting, you don't really have any of that available to you.

If I couldn't access the electronic copy of a report I submitted to the state once it was submitted, you better believe I would keep a hard copy as proof of what was submitted.