This was NJ and I was very sorry to see the old mechanical ,achines replaced. It is my understanding they were the most accurate system possible. I think it was absolute insanity to switch to electronic voting.
Our electronic voting machine, which reads paper ballots, was broken today, so the ballots will be counted by hand. This will slow the arrival of the results from this voting district, and the weird lights in the gymnasium did not help the situation--guaranteed.
hmm
I, too, was sorry to see the new machines this morning. I liked the old voting machines, adn it seems to me they worked very reliably for decades.
I think the problem being reported out of PA is that the 'X' shows up in the wrong spot.
I read that in Northern Jersey, several counties were experiencing similar problems, the machines had evidently been pre voted for Menendez and the voter had to touch his name first to unvote, then touch Kean, or the vote was cast for Menendez.
I don't mind the electronic machines, but the MUST print out a paper ballot, which most do not.
You can check that ballot, and then drop it in the ballot box. The paper ballots are counted and checked against the computer count. They better match. Redundant and a paper trail.
In Knox Co., TN, where all our new machines have worked perfectly (Pubbie county), you turn a dial to go to each race then further turn it to select your candidate. Then you push the vote button, which preliminarly registers your vote. Once you've finished voting, a verification screen appears that shows all the individuals you've voted for. If you want, you can make changes. If, OTOH, everything is OK, then you punch the red "enter" button, which registers your vote and locks it in. In other words, it's just like previewing a post here on FR and then clicking the "Post" button.
Here in Ohio we have Diebold machines that after you are finished you tell it to print a paper copy of how you voted to a roll that is stored in the machine.
It prints how you voted one page at a time and you can tell it to discard the ballot and start over at any point up until you have printed the entire ballot and confirmed it.
Yet, Democrats keep suggesting that Blackwell, who led the effort to get a deal on the machines which print a paper copy, is trying to steal the election with the help of Diebold.
We have a pretty solid system here despite all the hysterics.
Someone couldn't screw with the database to which the electronic totals are stored, because those totals wouldn't match the number of votes recorded to paper on the machines.
The fears that someone could get one of the digital voting cards and reprogram it and vote multiple times is pretty far fetched since there are people standing around watching you vote from a short distance away, and it would likely be noticed if you took out one card after voting and inserted another. However, even if it happened, the number of votes recorded on the machines would not match the number of people signing in.
If someone tried to screw with the vote tallies they'd have to find a way to screw with the sign-in book, and the voting machines as well. Screwing with the vote totals would be obvious when they go to verify them during canvasing.
It appears to me that our current system is as secure if not more secure than the punch card system that was in place before.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the mechanical machines were a nightmare. Aside from the wear and tear of moving parts, a knowledgable person could tamper with the machine to not record certain votes, and the tampering could easily escape detection. Think about it - who else uses mechanical computers today?
With the right electronic system, tampering becomes problematic. In Ohio, a legible printed ballot is created with the electronic record, providing redundancy. Tampering with the vote without detection is much much more difficult.
There are still ways a group could disrupt a vote to change its outcome, but I will not discuss them in a public forum.
Electronic voting is a recipe for handing elections over to the judges. People will never be convinced that they are not fraudulent. People have too much experience with viruses and hacking is constantly in the news. Few will ever entirely trust computers for voting. Computer voting is a major blow to the concept of popular voting in the United States. It is the one subject my UF prof friend and I agree on.