File Sharing Networks Would Like The... >>
<< Companies Not Investing In Disaster Recovery
 tdicon 


Surprises

by Mike Masnick

Wed, Nov 26th 2003 7:57am





Who Would Protest E-Voting Paper Trails? Election Officials

from the didn't-see-that-coming dept

Last week California made the right call in mandating a voter verifiable paper receipt in all electronic voting machines. This makes sense in any number of ways and it's hard to think of a reason why you wouldn't want that. However, a group of election officials are so angry about it that they're threatening to fight the state over the mandate. So, what are their problems with a system designed to make sure our elections are fair and accurate? They claim that the paper receipt isn't fair to the blind. No, seriously. Because the blind can't read the receipt, they claim, we should all be barred from using such systems. Of course, none of the election officials bothered to look at the one company that already offers machines with paper receipts - who says they offer a system that will read aloud the vote from the paper receipt using some text-to-speech technology so the voter confirms his or her vote. There goes that complaint. Second complaint? It will slow down voting. Does it really take that long to check the name on the receipt? Besides, where in the law does it say voting needs to be quick. You have as much time as you want when you go to vote, and we should encourage people to feel they've made the right choice - not ask them to speed up. Finally, they complain because some custom-made carts for transporting voting machines won't work any more. At this point, they're clearly just stretching for reasons. Since when does democracy take a back seat to our ability to transport voting machines? The complaints appear to just be politics from people who want to protest any change, even when it makes things better, just because they don't want to bother to change.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..


If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
 


 

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  

    Blind Voters

    identicon
    Beck, Nov 26th, 2003 @ 8:41am

    Sure the blind voters can't read the receipt. But how do blind voters use the electronic voting machines anyway? The machines have video screens that display the choices, and the voters indicate their selection by touching the screen. Obviously a blind voter would not be able to do this, so I am sure that some other method of voting is provided for them. I doubt that they are even using the machines that would be providing the paper receipts.

    This reminds me of the drive-up ATM machines that have braille characters on the buttons, probably to satisfy some equal-access regulations.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  

    It's not that they don't like change

    identicon
    DV Henkel-Wallace, Nov 26th, 2003 @ 9:19am

    I don't think it's a case of not liking change per se, but rather that totally electronic voting seems futuristic, and involving paper seems (to the technologically naïve) like a step backwards.

    The real risk of a paper audit trail is that it now makes it possible to buy votes...you pay when presented with the voter's receipt. Still, that risk is lower than the other risks.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  

    Re: It's not that they don't like change

    icon
    Mike (profile), Nov 26th, 2003 @ 9:28am

    Well, the plans call for paper receipts that stay in the machine (and are viewed through a window), so that decreases the vote buying issue (there are ways around this, of course, but it begins to get cumbersome).

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  

    Re: It's not that they don't like change

    identicon
    donc, Nov 26th, 2003 @ 9:56am

    I suspect what they are really against is the possibility of ever having to do a manual recount. You can't be forced to manually count paper receipts that don't exist.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  

    Re: It's not that they don't like change

    identicon
    MissinLnk, Nov 26th, 2003 @ 9:58am

    Photographs of said paper receipts, perhaps?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  

    Re: It's not that they don't like change

    icon
    Mike (profile), Nov 26th, 2003 @ 10:13am

    Yeah, photographs are the way around it, but photographs can be done on any kind of voting system... You could already take a photo of yourself voting, so I don't see how this is any different.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  

    Re: It's not that they don't like change

    identicon
    Oliver Wendell Jones, Nov 26th, 2003 @ 11:06am

    Yeah, and it's been scientifically proven that you can't fake a digital (or even traditional chemical) pictures... [/sarcasm off]

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  

    Re: It's not that they don't like change

    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2003 @ 12:44pm

    Sure photographs. Take a picture of the print out that's there for verification, then press the button that says "oops, I need to do it right this time" and then vote the way you want to. I like it, I could sell my vote several times and still vote the way I want.

    It isn't that the voting officials are afraid of change, since they're changing to these fancy machines anyway. They're afraid of it changing the "right" way...

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  

    No Subject Given

    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 26th, 2003 @ 1:29pm

    Anyone read the book "Who Moved My Cheese"? This sounds like a perfect example of such a reaction. A change in their work environments is being forced down onto them and they weren't asked for their input. So now they are fighting it any way they can.

    BooHoo. Happens every day in a real work environment.

    I agree with the previous poster - they really want to minimize the chances of a papertrail and manual recounts. Since most election officials are elected anyway (and most belong to either the Dems or Reps anyway) this helps the officials "keep control" over the process. I suspect their main motivation is ensuring their party retains control of the political process, rather than having a true and fair election.


    As for vote-buying - who cares. A vast percentage of the voting public are mindless sheep who cast party line votes irregardless of the candidates merits. Having competing bids for their vote might actually induce some of the sheep to think for a change!

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>

File Sharing Networks Would Like The... >>
<< Companies Not Investing In Disaster Recovery
 tdicon 

A word from our Sponsors...
Follow Techdirt
Flattr rss rss
Essential Reading

Hot Topics

New To Techdirt?

Explore some core concepts:

read all »

A word from our Sponsors...

Close

Email This