Replies

There seems to be a myth that election fraud is done by voters. No, for the most part the fraud is done by those RUNNING THE ELECTION.

It is wonderful and marvelous that Prof Rubin participated in a great bipartisan election run by dedicated and honest Americans.

Now he should go to one of those rotten Philly precincts and see if it the same game.

The holes in security that he identified are real. The problem is NOT with the companies per se, but with any system that has any element that lacks cross-checking.

It seems in the case of electronic voting, the old trick of simply having the election judge sign in dead voters and add the tally himself could happen. All you need is for nobody to notice. Old fashioned and the new system doesnt defeat it.

The holes in security that he identified are real.

Look, given untrustworthy poll workers? Of course.

Untrustworthy poll workers can do a whole lot more damage if the ballots are punch-cards than if they are paper ballots which voters mark with a pen. (See 2000, "dimpled chads".) Untrustworthy poll wokers can do a whole lot more damage if ballots are electronic, than if they are punch-cards. Essentially, the potential for poll worker fraud is magnified exponentially, the more sophisticated and "mass" technology that is used.

That is why I advocate paper ballots.

Nowhere did I say I wouldn't keep a better eye on poll workers if necessary. Of course I would. But "there could be dishonest poll workers!!" is not an argument against paper ballots per se. It is an argument against, first of all, trusting poll workers too much. It is also an argument against voting systems which leave no paper trail, and/or whcih render ballots too identical/interchangeable/computer-friendly, and/or on which all tallies are kept on computer and can be spoofed by the push of a button. In other words it is an argument against systems other than paper ballots.