elections
Electronic voting machines (EVMs) print a paper slip (VVPAT) that the voter sees before it drops into a sealed box. Today, slips from five randomly chosen booths in each assembly segment are counted and matched with the EVM count. In April 2024 the Supreme Court rejected petitions for counting all slips, finding no evidence of tampering. Some parties and activists still ask for a full count or a return to paper ballots.
Take a stance to see what people think.
Results open up once you've answered, so they don't sway you. 252 people have taken a stance so far.
Mark an argument convincing even if you took the other side. It shows which points persuade people across the divide.
Counting every slip would put doubts about EVMs to rest.
Elections depend on the losers accepting the result. A full paper count would answer doubts about EVMs, whether or not they are justified.
The paper slips already exist. Counting them all would use a trail that is already being created and paid for.
Several democracies count paper ballots by hand; a few extra hours or a day for results is a small price for certainty.
Sample checks are sufficient; full counts add delay and risk.
Thousands of sample checks since 2019 have matched the EVM counts. Counting every slip would add little but time and cost.
Counting crores of small slips by hand would delay results and reintroduce the human errors and disputes that EVMs were meant to end.
The Supreme Court examined the technical safeguards in 2024 and found the current system adequate.
How much extra counting time and effort is worth spending to reassure voters. The facts that matter are whether sample checks have ever found a mismatch, and how many hours a full count would add to results day.
