Democrash! Electronic voting is a good idea - just not yet

The Prometheus Institute ^ | 9/25/2006 | Justin Hartfield

[tang0r]

Computer technology, as a science, is still in its infancy. Far more is known about the automobile, for example, than the computer. Since the personal computer has only been in existence for thirty years, our experiences are limited simply due to lack of historical perspective. So computers of today are equivalent to the cars which were made in the 1930s; they were able to deliver you from point A to point B, but in terms of reliability there was more to be desired. There are shockingly few best practice guides on the market for designing bug-free software, because there just has not been enough time elapsed to accurately study the effects of poorly written software on a large-scale. So it is for all these reasons to believe that problems will occur. Indeed, they will occur for a long time before we should expect software to execute to perfection, even though we are asking it to perform to such a level now.

So, at best, computer voting machines are prone to the same amount of human error and corruption as paper. But the cost is astronomical- $106 million dollars in Maryland alone. Wasted money which would be better served on problems which we have yet to solved or reforming process which already work.

It's time to realize that the decision to modernize our polling stations was a hasty one. The technology simple isn't there yet. Instead of redoing the entire system that worked well in the vast majority of cases, let's just reform it until the technology is ready. We can devise a simple machine that would check ballots before submission, ensuring the holes were punched properly and none of those infamous chads were hanging.

[Ole Okie]

Geez, has this guy ever used a personal computer?

I have a very fast Dell and Apple MacBook Pro. They're the most reliable pieces of equipment around the house.

[HEY4QDEMS]

IMO, optical scan is the best.

It gives you the accuracy of electronic counting as well as a hard copy of the actual ballot.

This was actually brought up during the recounts in FL, that the number disparity between election night results and recount results were virtually unchanged in the counties that used the optical systems.

[RayChuang88]

There's a name for it: mark-sense ballots.

Essentially using the same system like the Scantron sheets used for the SAT and ACT college entrance exams, such a ballot--since it is required to be filled out in either pen or a permanent ink marker--is not only machine readable but also hand-readable in case of close elections.

[vrwc1]

Prometheus Institute...is that part of the Luddite Consortium?

[yevgenie]

Yes. But they also make it harder to cheat, hence the Democrat opposition.

[Eva]

This article is just a prelude to what the Democrats are preparing to claim after the November election, if the results don't match their expectations. Then we will have endless recounts, like in the Washingtion State govenor's election, with more and more "found ballots", all marked for the Democrat. In King county, alone, the Democrats "found" just enough ballots to win the election, the number of "found" ballots just happened to match the number of ballots which exceeded the number of registered voters.

[HEY4QDEMS]

Yes. But they also make it harder to cheat, hence the Democrat opposition.

Actually, there is very little opposition from either party on this type of system.
Case in point, I live in Marty Meehan's congresional district and we use it in our town.

[newzjunkey]

IMO, optical scan is the best.

Yup and there's automatically a paper trail which is easily human verifiable. It's a no-brainer but the Democrats are obsessed with electronic voting which is infinitely easier to manipulate.

[bmwcyle]

Computer technology, as a science, is still in its infancy.

We are passing the computer revolution to the NANO and Bio Engineering revolution. The writer is so far behind. Must be a product of liberal public education.

[hsalaw]

So let's go back to the butterfly ballot which had all of the people in Florida so confused. I always liked the butterfly ballot - we used it here in California for years - I liked punching those holes for "NO!!!!" on bond measures and taxes. Sigh. The good old days.

[taxcontrol]

A modified form of computer voting is possible in such a manner that is highly difficult to tamper with and is able to be audited.

Have a computer print the voter's ballot. Clearly indicate the Candidates or position's name on the ballot. Issue each ballot a tracking/security number so that any spoiled ballots must be accounted for. Computer maintains a record of all ballots printed which serves as an audit trail of the ballots printed.

Of course, this still does not address the issue of fraudulent voters....

Voter reviews the ballet for correctness, and if OK, puts the paper ballot into the ballot box. If the ballot form is constructed properly, a bar code can be printed for each vote or for the vote of all positions making the ballot easy to machine count. If a hand or recount is required, the voter's intent will be easy to determine because the desired candidate / position is PRINTED on the ballot.

[Salgak]

It IS in its' infancy. We still have computers as discrete devices, not as an integral part of the environment we live in.

[Mad Dawgg]

"Democrash! Electronic voting is a good idea - just not yet"

Translation: We Democrats will not support electronic voting till we have a sure-fire way to cheat using these newfangled machines!

[MonroeDNA]

What a crock!!! Just use the multiple ISO documents for designing software for implantable medical devices.

VERY strict, with a validation trail, fully auditable at any time.

[USS Alaska]

The technology simple isn't there yet.

Every day we transfer trillions of dollars via computer and we depend on computers for airline control, train control, every major system is computer controlled. Yet, they are not reliable enough to ADD numbers. Please stop it.