I’m surprised at the number of critics here to what is, imho, a straightforward, objective piece. It concerns me, actually, because clearly, no matter how carefully and painstakingly precise tech people try to be, in explaining even low-level types of complexity to non-tech people, the point still gets missed. Yes, we trust code for milions of applications routinely, but we’re talking about, arguably, among the most important applications of technology, and one that can and will be targeted by malicious parties. Also, Ryan uses basically a single example of how ONE program can be corrupted; in a voting system, there wuld be multiple opportunities (many programs) involved, from multiple compiled programs on the machines themselves all the way up through whatever networks are used to tally and report the results.
I’m still optimistic that an innovative tech-oriented solution exists, though. I was going to ask about blockchain, but I guess based on that cartoon, that is also not the right solution. Great piece!