[Kerrigan]

To my knowledge, there have not been any referendums passed on voting machines.

This November, 90% of votes will be either cast or tabulated using voting machines.

I'm not even sure if this is a divisive issue. I have a gut feeling that most people do not trust a voting system which does not leave a paper trail. We have all seen how unpredictable electronic communication is, how easily servers are hacked, how much incredibly valuable information is leaked, etc. Elections should be properly documented, and the voting machine is dubious if you ask me. What is even more dubious is that this is being implemented by bureaucrats who haven't put the issue to vote.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

To my knowledge, there have not been any referendums passed on voting machines.

Key phrase being "to your knowledge". 22 states have implemented some sort of "paper trail" verification for electronic voting machines. http://electionline.org/Default.aspx?tabid=290

Don't get me wrong, I think the problem is FAR FAR from being "solved" ... too many states with no rules at all or rules that did not go in to effect until a future voting cycle (e.g. Ohio passed a law in May '04 requiring a paper trail but it did not go in to effect until 1/1/06). Perhaps most scary, 7 of the 16 most populous states TX (2), FL (4), PA (6), GA (9), VA (12), IN (15), TN (16) currently use electronic voting machines but do not require a paper receipt for potential recounts.

[Dork.]

One of the problems with these new voting machines is that, for some reason, they simply weren't developed with total security in mind, which is suprising, considering the same companies who make ATMs make these machines. They were built to look secure, but there are large holes in the process. Hannibal from Ars details how easy it is to compromise these systems here:

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/evoting.ars

I do not have confidence in the ability of this system to gather an accurate vote count without being compromised. And that scares me.

[Spliffdaddy]

Why does everybody assume that past elections have been tallied correctly? I'm of the opinion that elections get more accurate everytime manual voting gives way to electronic voting. Human beings are far more prone to mistakes than are machines. When you have human beings interpreting punchcards or other paper ballots I guarantee you will have inaccuracy.

So far, it seems like only Democrats are complaining about the accuracy of ballots. The winner of an election never asks for a recount. I can only assume that if Democrats happen to have a good showing this November, then some of the winning Democrats will ask for a recount. Right? Or will they miraculously change their opinion that elections are full of inaccuracy and fraud?

Nah. It's only an issue when you lose.

[Millennium]

I still say that voting machines should print out paper ballots, filled according to the voter's choices, which the voter then casts in the traditional way. This allows for the increased accuracy of electronic methods while providing the paper trail of traditional methods.

Then again, I'm also of a mind that the source code that these machines run must be available for the public to inspect. Granted, I'm a fan of open source in other contexts, but this is an issue where the inner workings of these machines are Just Too Important to simply trust any venture, private or public, that they work the way they're supposed to.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Why does everybody assume that past elections have been tallied correctly? I'm of the opinion that elections get more accurate everytime manual voting gives way to electronic voting. Human beings are far more prone to mistakes than are machines. When you have human beings interpreting punchcards or other paper ballots I guarantee you will have inaccuracy.

All things being equal, the count does get more accurate when done electronically as compared to paper ballots. But my main gripe about these machines involve the secutiry of the vote. It's simply too easy for a single bad actor to manipulate the vote count. Did you read the Ars article? Did you know that the particular Diebold system they analyzed has all precincts dial their vote totals into a Windows computer at the board of elections, using the Plain Old Telephone Service, and the vote totals reside on the central computer as an unencrypted Access database? Anyone with the number to that machine can dial in remotely, take over the machine using one of a number of Windows exploits, and edit that file! And other than the record of the phone number the call came from, it's untraceable, and affects the votes in every polling station tabulated by that computer at once!

Remember what Stalin said, it's not he who votes that counts, it's he who counts the votes.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Why does everybody assume that past elections have been tallied correctly? I'm of the opinion that elections get more accurate everytime manual voting gives way to electronic voting. Human beings are far more prone to mistakes than are machines. When you have human beings interpreting punchcards or other paper ballots I guarantee you will have inaccuracy.

Yes, human beings make mistakes, but these mistakes are usually not guided to one side or the other, and therefore most likely to weigh each other out.

In the case of voting-machines without a paper-trail it's possible to manipulate results exactly the way the manipulator wants it, and there's no way to find out if manipulation happened or not.

Taliesin

[Dork.]

Here's something else for you to consider:

MiamiHerald.com | 10/28/2006 | Glitches cited in early voting

Several South Florida voters say the choices they touched on the electronic screens were not the ones that appeared on the review screen -- the final voting step.

Election officials say they aren't aware of any serious voting issues. But in Broward County, for example, they don't know how widespread the machine problems are because there's no process for poll workers to quickly report minor issues and no central database of machine problems.

...

Broward Supervisor of Elections spokeswoman Mary Cooney said it's not uncommon for screens on heavily used machines to slip out of sync, making votes register incorrectly. Poll workers are trained to recalibrate them on the spot -- essentially, to realign the video screen with the electronics inside. The 15-step process is outlined in the poll-workers manual.

...

Mauricio Raponi wanted to vote for Democrats across the board at the Lemon City Library in Miami on Thursday. But each time he hit the button next to the candidate, the Republican choice showed up. Raponi, 53, persevered until the machine worked. Then he alerted a poll worker.

Remember, these are made by some of the same people who make ATM's. Would you be condifent about your money if your bank manager said something like "screens on heavily used machines ... slip out of sync, making deposits register incorrectly." ? Or if there were "no process for ATM machine maintainers to report minor problems and no central database of machine problems"?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Why does everybody assume that past elections have been tallied correctly? I'm of the opinion that elections get more accurate everytime manual voting gives way to electronic voting. Human beings are far more prone to mistakes than are machines. When you have human beings interpreting punchcards or other paper ballots I guarantee you will have inaccuracy.

It seems to me as though the concern isn't over accuracy in the counting of votes, but over accuracy in the recording of votes. There's concern that it would be too easy to drop or switch votes in a computer-based system, long before the votes could be counted at all.

Here, at least, there's a point. Then again, as the 2000 elections showed, people can't be counted on to record their own votes accurately any more than machines can: what do you do when people misinterpret instructions and refuse to ask for help? This is the problem that got us into this mess in the first place: we wanted machines because we couldn't trust people. But now we're finding we can't trust the machines either. What's left?

[Dakar²]

You know, imagine if we used a photograph beside the names when voting (to increase ease/accuracy for voters?). I bet this would change election outcomes, though, not unlike how television has changed how debates are perceived.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

You know, imagine if we used a photograph beside the names when voting (to increase ease/accuracy for voters?). I bet this would change election outcomes, though, not unlike how television has changed how debates are perceived.

Agreed, though I also believe it would be best to include an audio clip of the candidate saying his or her name. Give the voter as many ways as possible to recognize the different candidates.

[Dakar²]

Personally, I'd love to see a short list of hot topic items with the politicians stance included (supports/against). But then again, too many items go beyond a simple answer such as support or against.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

You know, imagine if we used a photograph beside the names when voting (to increase ease/accuracy for voters?). I bet this would change election outcomes, though, not unlike how television has changed how debates are perceived.

Here in New York, we would have a controversy over whether the picture that is used for Hilalry is ugly or not.

Democrat & Chronicle: Local News

[Dakar²]

As far as I'm concerned the candidate should supply the photo.

Edit: Man, candidates sure know how to avoid the real issues.