Still Missing The Point On Electronic Voting Machines

from the not-this-again dept

Why is it that the debate on electronic voting machines seems to consist of two sides talking about completely different things? Those who are complaining about the current voting machines are simply pointing out that, as the machines currently are designed, there's simply no way to double-check to make sure there are no errors - and it's really not difficult to correct that. Those in favor of the current voting machines refuse to actually listen to what people are saying, and instead seem to believe that the complaints are against the concept of electronic voting machines. So, when a concerned group takes out an advertisement demanding a verifiable paper trail in voting machines, the voting machine companies respond by saying: "the machines have never recorded an inaccurate vote." How do they know? That is the problem. It might be completely true - but without a verifiable paper trail, there's simply no way to know if the votes are accurate or not. I could claim that the machines haven't recorded a single accurate vote, and I would have just as much proof as they do. Also, interestingly, this is the first article I've seen where a Diebold spokesperson admits what we said last week: these machines already have printers inside. So, why are these companies so hesitant to create verifiable paper receipts?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Precision Blogger, Mar 19th, 2004 @ 7:04am

    In fact, the companies DO know.

    We've had reports of vote totals that are impossibly high, and there was one case where the number of districts reporting votes exceeded the number of districts.
    - Precision Blogger
    http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    aNonMooseCowherd, Mar 19th, 2004 @ 7:48am

    proof

    these machines already have printers inside. So, why are these companies so hesitant to create verifiable paper receipts?

    That should be obvious: printing receipts opens up the possibility of proving any mistakes the machines may make.

     

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

  3.  
    identicon
    eskayp, Mar 19th, 2004 @ 10:34am

    Re: proof

    I might suggest one small editorial change:
    "...proving any mistakes the machines may make
    in favor of president Bush and republican candidates
    as the head of Diebold intended from the beginning."

     

    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>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This