I could design a device that had the advantages of both without much trouble. Allow the voter to use a touch-screen to register the vote, then print it out and have the voter confirm its veracity then drop it in a secured ballot box. When the voter is finished voting, record the vote locally AND to a remote site which would independently tally the result. Produces both an electronic and a paper record, which would greatly increase the barrier to forgery and fraud.
If the numbers don’t add up from all the different places where it is recorded, immediately secure all physical and electronic evidence and conduct a thorough probe of the actions of all individuals involved.
Increase sentencing to a felony with a minimum of 10 years with no parole for anyone convicted of willful alteration of the results of the vote.
the progbrammer who makes your device do what you want it to do can control the output. period. anything that can be programmed can be programmed to yield the desired outcome.
I can program this (and I haven’t written a real application in 15 years or so) in a short time, and there is absouutely no way you can catch me.
That is the system I have advocated since the 2000 election and the surge of electronic voting. Cast your ballot electronically, let it print a voter verifiable ballot, drop the ballot in the locked box. At the end of the day, the electronic count and paper count better match!
I’ve been a Poll Watcher for several elections in Atlanta since 1998. I’ve seen 2 people go into the same voting booth. I challenged one of those ballots, and the Dem Election Committee overruled the challenge. I’ve seen campaigning in the voting line. And I’ve seen buses arrive and drop off 40-50 people at a time.
The last election I watched, one of the several precincts I was watching had a much higher provisional ballot count than the others and higher than normal. It was reported to the GOP Election lawyers, but as far as I know, nothing happened.