"Testing the Testers"

Amherst Times ^ | 8 January 2007 | Christopher Drew

[lifelong_republican]

"There is by now no doubt that there are serious problems with electronic voting machines: they fail to record votes, and even flip votes from one candidate to another..."

[lifelong_republican]

Paper ballots are better because they are controlled directly by the voter when created and confirmed, and are auditable under supervision, and are more physically reliable. No voters ever had to stand in line for hours or even leave without voting because a piece of paper and a marker wouldn't boot.

[Poser]

[Poser]

Opscan:
Paper ballot
Machine count
Machine and manually recountable

[lifelong_republican]

It's about your vote, too.

[Poser]

It's BS.

[lifelong_republican]

Yes, you are right! The opscans could be rigged, but the original paper can be recounted in other ways, and that's what adds the auditability.

Excellent point.

[lifelong_republican]

What is BS?

[Poser]

Voting machine fraud is BS. Unfortunately, the losers are going to whine every year, forever, so machines/Internet's voting will never be allowed to continue.

It means we are stuck with old ladies sitting behind tables at multiple polling stations, handing out opscan ballots to people who have to get there during voting hours and stand in line to vote.

The opscan machine is pretty much foolproof, however. Even if the machine breaks, it's easy to take the ballots to another machine for counting. If necessary, all voting can be done on paper and the ballots can be transported to a central location for scanning.

None of this keeps poll workers, voter registrars and fools from screwing up the count.

I would rather see Internet voting for certified voters. That would require voters to register before the election. An electronic record of who voted and from what IP address would be simple to keep and print.

Voters could easily receive a printout of their votes including a checksum of the votes. Checksums could be available to the registrar to check accuracy and if needed, the actual list of votes could be kept for comparison by courts. The actual vote by person would create some privacy issues, but the checksum would not because nobody could see the actual votes.

Heck, you could then easily make a voting period of several days with the ability to log back in and adjust your votes. Since it wouldn't tie up poll workers, there would be no additional cost.

But it won't happen.

[lifelong_republican]

You make good points but the problems with the electronics include unreliability along with vulnerability. I'd like to see internet voting, too, but it can't be made sufficiently secure at this time, either.

Ideally, we should be able to watch the equivalent of CSPAN with informational sidebars and search engines at the ready, and each voter can enter an ID and password and send in a yes or no on every issue as desired.

[OldFriend]

Because there was no cheating before the electronic machines were used.

Chicago, Newark, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Detroit.

[CharlesWayneCT]

And yet we seem to hand off our money to unknown computers run by unknown people. We do our stock trades in unknown computers run by unknown people. My kid's school grades are all kept in a computer. Computers run our cars. They run most of our military equipment.

Sorry, I don't particularly like electronic voting, but to suggest that the problem is inherent in a system using a computer that is programmed is simplistic.

[Nick Danger]

Paper ballots are better because they are controlled directly by the voter when created and confirmed, and are auditable under supervision, and are more physically reliable.

That's rifht. Hunans are mucj more reliable thn compyters. Humsns never make mistzkes. The err rate wood be much lewer if we get rod of the majines.

Oops, I ment to say "wud" be lowr if we grt rid og the macgine.

[lifelong_republican]

Previous cheating doesn't justify ongoing or future cheating. Those who support the electronics want to make it easy for the corrupt Democrats to cheat and get away with it.

[lifelong_republican]

Banks, merchants, and the others you describe don't use unknown systems operated by unknown people, and they most assuredly have tangible independent physical documents for audits.

[Mr.Unique]

People who know computers know not to have false trust in them.

I won't use electronic voting machines for the same reason that I won't use ATMs. They are error prone and constantly hacked. I could lose thousands of dollars.

Oh wait, that's not true at all. hmmmm

[lifelong_republican]

Even if you don't believe you can personally create or confirm your own ballot, you shouldn't hand those duties off to others who may not only introduce errors but thwart your intent.

Paper ballots are not only permanent tangible independent audit records, they're created and confirmed by the voters themselves and their handling can be observed openly.

[lifelong_republican]

ATMs are quite different from the voting systems. The newest ones do not use touchscreens at all and they all have independent physical documentation.

[metesky]

One trick pony.

[lifelong_republican]

Tell me what other issue would be anything but moot once you have given up your right to vote.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Real Americans would be better served than to use the NYTimes editorial as their main source not only for the thread, but for their argument.