In my personal life I write software for the manufacturing industry. Professionally, I am an engineer, and write code for computer-operated equipment (lathes and mills, commonly known as CNC machines.)
For a sense of scale, let me say that most CNC programs are under 250 lines of code. In addition to controlling the cutting tools, the programs will check for operator input mistakes: Tools can only be adjusted within a narrow range, anything outside that range and the machine won't run. Did the operator slow it down to check something and forget to turn it back to 100%? Machine won't run. And so on. Idiot-proofing, dimensional checks and feedback, torque monitoring, etc.
Before we even let the customer see their new machine, we have already run the machine for 8 hours of hands-off auto cycling of the program. We have also run each cutting tool through enough parts to ensure the cutting conditions are optimal. Then for the customer we run an additional hands-off production run of 8 hours or 35 pieces (whichever is greater) and then do a 100% inspection of every feature out to 5 decimal places, followed by some statistical analysis to measure capability. Once the customer is happy, we ship the machine and repeat this on their floor. Then we spend a few days going over the statistical analysis, then a week of training for their operators. Only then is it ready for producing parts that make sure your car door latches with 18lbs of force rather than 19lbs.
Oh, yeah... we provide the computer code to the customer as well, every line commented for clarity.
Doesn't it seem like voting software, which likely is thousands of lines of code, should be made open-source and go through some sort of approval process before being used for real? Isn't this software vetted or tested or examined at all?
-+Edit+- I should clarify... I am not claiming that voting software and CNC programs are similar in architecture, language, layout, complexity, or structure. My point is, if a fairly simple g-code program and its performance is vetted so thoroughly by the end user, at multiple points in its development and prove out, then why in the hell isn't the software that determines how my vote is recorded given the same level of scrutiny? I didn't realize my example was too convoluted for so many snowflakes.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Hand_of_Node 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I like the "educated" qualifier, but that's not what we have, nor is the accuracy of the system a concern for a large percentage of voters. Winning is the desired performance, and "thinking outside the
boxrules" can achieve that result.There's a perspective out there that sees "autistically adhering to a set of arbitrary rules" as a losing strategy, and essentially crippling your chance of winning. The importance of winning is that you can then adjust the rules as you wish.
Counting the opinions and votes of every person only works in a homogeneous society, which we no longer have. Our society is now a battleground between the original inhabitants and the invaders, and the literally crazy thing is that the invaders are allowed to change our society as they wish, once their invasion numbers are large enough.
Voting is a weapon in a multicultural society, and the side that ties their hands behind their backs in the war is going to lose. The side that fires the most bullets is going to win, when the only criteria that matters is having the largest number.
[–] chirogonemd 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Excellent insight.
The concept of voting as a weapon in a multicultural society is so accurate.