Computer scientists, politicians clash over voting machines

Associated Press ^ | 2-25-03 | RACHEL KONRAD

[Oldeconomybuyer]

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- At least one in 10 voters nationwide cast ballots in the last presidential election on electronic voting machines, whose popularity is growing as counties replace the antiquated systems blamed for Florida's hanging chad debacle.

But in Silicon Valley, computer scientists want to halt the trend -- at least until voting machines are redesigned to produce a paper record of every vote. They say paper backups offer more protection against hackers -- or political hacks -- who might tamper with electronic results.

[BfloGuy]

Paper receipts, which punch-card voting machines never produced, create potential hazards as well.

Well, DUH! The punch card, itself, was the paper trail.

Anyone who suggests any voting system that doesn't provide a paper recording of transactions is a complete moron or a crook (wanted to say Democrat, but toned it down).

[Servant of the Nine]

When some hacker living in his mother's basement is mysteriously elected Senator or Governor of a State, politicians will finally admit current computer voting machines are too corruptable even for them.

So9

[dalereed]

The only safe and verifiable system is the old hand marked paper ballots counted in the precinct with poll watchers watching the count of every ballot. It was easy, fast, and couldn't be tampered with. Just because it hasn't been used in almost 40 years doesn't make it obsolete unless you want to tamper with the vote!

[ken in texas]

This trend towards high-tech, computerized voting machines scares me. The companies won't make the software available for peer review, so no one knows exactly how the machines function. In addition, the provision for paper trails often leaves much to be desired.

Call me an old fogey, but I tend to favor hand marked ballots, counted by hand with oversight from both (or more) parties. If it takes a couple days to get all the results tabulated, so be it. I want a paper trail and strict accountability all the way up the line.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[ken in texas]

You beat me to the punch with your reply.

I've seen many advances since my degree in Compuer Science was awarded 30 years ago. None of them increase my trust of computerized voting systems.

[marktwain]

There must be an easily verified paper trail. The idea of reciepts is a good one, because it allows checks of each vote.

[lucysmom]

If it takes a couple days to get all the results tabulated, so be it. I want a paper trail and strict accountability all the way up the line.

Same here. Protecting the integrity of our vote matters more than speed.

I wonder if hackers tend to be conservative or liberal. Perhaps if the paperless vote trend continues we'll find out.

[Paleo Conservative]

The idea of reciepts is a good one, because it allows checks of each vote.

Just wait till you get outside and some thug asks to see your reciept!

[Jack Black]

Huh? I think your wrong, sorry. A paper trail is far superior to no paper trail.

[marktwain]

Just wait till you get outside and some thug asks to see your reciept!

A good point. Just look at the way thugs have intimidated voters in Zimbabwe and other third world countries. I guess it depends on what you fear more, voter fraud, or voter intimidation.

Paper, hand marked ballots may be the best system.

[BfloGuy]

Maybe my fingers were thick last night -- that's what I was trying to say.

In the one instance where punch card optical reading systems were being cited as an example of a system with no paper trail, I was just pointing out that the punch cards were the paper trail.

I believe there should be no system allowed without a paper trail.