[sten]

as a software professional who has delivered a number of embedded solutions over the passed 20 years, I can tell you this solution can be made secure, reliable, and allow for detection of vote tampering.

only question would be whether or not they actually want such a thing... which at this point I firmly believe they do not.

[Wonder Warthog]

"..as a software professional who has delivered a number of embedded solutions over the passed 20 years, I can tell you this solution can be made secure, reliable, and allow for detection of vote tampering."

No real possible audit trail. Machine-scanned paper ballots are the best possible solution--as the voted ballots are sealed inside the machines, and can be counted directly by humans in the event of a recount. No "all electronic" solution will EVER be as secure.

[Bernard]

as a software professional who has delivered a number of embedded solutions over the passed 20 years, I can tell you this solution can be made secure, reliable, and allow for detection of vote tampering.

"Never say Never" statements like that are the reason why auditing exists as a profession, and why IT auditors always talk about reasonable assurance, management appetite for risk, and the need to almost always never say Never or Always.

[lifelong_republican]

I totally agree with you that the use of manipulatable 'voting' systems is deliberate.

[DB]

I don't want to get into a tit for tat, but I'm a professional electrical engineer that also has more than twenty years of experience. I've written a lot of code for numerous controllers, DSPs and CPUs that are embedded in my hardware designs.

And I strongly disagree with your assessment.

[Knitebane]

As a com-sec and IT professional that has audited the security of vast numbers of commercial and military systems over the last 20 years, I can tell you that no solution can be made completely secure and reliable. You can only mitigate the risks.

Electronic-only systems are not only vulnerable to being compromised but highly vulnerable to being compromised with out the compromise being detected.

Of all of the automated voting systems I've seen, the electo-optical systems had the most resilience. The ballot is marked with an indelible marker and the vote counter scans the ballot. In the case of a problem, all of the ballots can be recounted electronically or manually. This removes the electronic system as the single point of failure.

[dforest]

You are most likely correct. Before this last election there was a guy on Fox in the morning showing how people could touch screen vote and if there was a paper trail the paper would print out something different than they pushed.
Probably why Dems wanted this. I don't think they want a good system like you are speaking of. They prefer cheat machines!