RE: electronic voting tomorrow

I trust paper ballots far, FAR more than electronic ballots.  Not even
close.  No contest.

As I see it, the big difference between paper and electronic is that with
paper, you always have the physical evidence.  You can see why there are
unexpected discrepancies and the causes (hanging chads, etc.)  I can look at
my ballot and match it up to the legend that I punched it from.  (And I
always do this.)

With electronic voting, no one, with the *possible* exception of the
person(s) who wrote the programs, knows what happens exactly when a screen
button is pushed.  A vote bit is sent through a gamut of instructions for
which there are zero auditing capabilities.  It lands in a pool, hopefully,
and in the right pool, hopefully.  If someone screams "cheat!", how will
anyone ever verify?  To my knowledge, the auditing capabilities are totally
insufficient.

If you're cynical about what happens to a paper ballot after you return it
to be counted, well then, you're not doubting the technology so much as you
are the people responsible for ensuring every vote counts.  This type of
cynicism precedes our lifetime.

Overall, if "the people" lose the trust of the electoral process, it is an
open invitation to anarchy.

Who's giving odds that this election won't go before the Supreme Court
again?

db

> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx / rob@xxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 4:21 PM
>
> Nothing is trusted anyway.  Not paper ballots.  Not mechanical paper
> ballots (hanging chads).  Nothing.  There will always be an argument
> saying why it's bad.  Thus, should all attempts to improve be permanently
> shelved?  After all, if it's all going to be tied up in the
> courts anyway,
> why spend the money on trying to improve the equipment when it could be
> better spent on something less controversial?
>
> Rob Berendt