[kcar]

Deep scepticism here too. Voting is largely a matter of citizen trust. Stuff happens everywhere, just not all the time in the same direction. Problem is, after seeing dead people get up and vote alphabetically, we know the Rats are shameless. And after seeing in the 2000 election the sore-losers fly in hundreds of attorneys to poor old Florida, summarily dismiss the votes of soldiers for extreme technicalities, and then brazenly "divine voter intent" in hanging or dimpled chads, who could ever trust the Rats with electronic software? There's gotta be an empirical trail. If the sore losers force a manual recount, beat the stuffing out of them next time.

[PetroniDE]

Here is the problem with "paper trails". They are easier to deface than electronic vote totals. Imagine how easy it is to lose, deface, double punch, or add to paper ballots. I think electronic voting is a positive step.

The only reasonable concern regarding electronic voting I have seen addresses hacking; however, that fear is much over hyped. As an election judge that has used both punch card and electronic systems (e-slate in Texas), I can tell you that hacking of any electronic system requires fraud/insider dealing at the very top of the state electoral process. If that occurs, the system of voting doesn't matter.

The computer should handle ALL counting. No bias in the computer. Two more things. 1) A Republican in Every Precinct serving as judge/clerk/poll watcher and 2)REQUIRE IDENTIFICATION AT THE POLLING STATION.