Replies

"To imply that insiders can change the outcome of an election is incorrect. It implies that election officials across the state are incompetent or corrupt and neither of those statements are true."

It isn't that elections officials across the state may be incompetent or corrupt. All it takes are a few elections officials who are incompetent or corrupt, and who hack into electronic voting systems to change the outcome. With no paper trail, there's absolutely no way to detect or correct such election fraud.

U.S. history is replete with examples of fraud by both major political parties. We must "trust but verify". It's not enough to trust the honesty of election officials or the security of all-electronic voting machines; we must be able to verify both.

I'm a software engineer and a digital circuit designer, and I am convinced that it is absolutely insane to base elections on electronic voting machines which have no audit trail and no means to recount the ballots. Diebold richly deserves all the grief it is getting. The company should have known better, and if it didn't know better it shouldn't have gotten into the business.

Optical-scan ballots, with a few features added to prevent ballot alteration, seem like the most cost-effective and efficient means of running an election. What advantages do ballot-printing DRE machines offer that can even begin to justify their cost?

"I'm a software engineer and a digital circuit designer, and I am convinced that it is absolutely insane to base elections on electronic voting machines which have no audit trail and no means to recount the ballots. Diebold richly deserves all the grief it is getting. The company should have known better, and if it didn't know better it shouldn't have gotten into the business."

Same job here, and I couldn't agree with you more

Diebold management must be a particularly incompetent bunch.