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 ago
I'm going to argue that this is incorrect on two counts. Firstly, we don't treat vote counting as anything else, which is the problem. Secondly, the implication that a cheat-friendly system is irrational is the opposite of reality. When the winners gain the ability to literally control the lives of the losers, and the larger number is the only criteria that matters, ensuring your sides ability to "think outside the box" (cheat) is very rational in a society composed of cultures and races at war.
You're correct about how to make the ballots more secure, and the count more accurate, but that is clearly not what the actual owners of the United States want.
A popular meme account on one of the chans said "It's all a show. You're watching a movie."
The cult followers interpreted it as intended, to only apply to a specific instance, but it was the literal truth about the operation of what we perceive as 'our society'. Few enjoy the idea of essentially being cattle on a feedlot, or even in a pasture with real grass, so the vast majority of us cattle focus instead on the minutiae of everyday life. How to make the distribution of hay more fair. Who gets milked first. Whether the electricity powering the milking machines comes from sustainable sources...