E-Voting Critics Brushed Off As Wild-Eyed Activists?
from the way-to-win-support dept
The article continues along its bizarre defense of e-voting machines. Anyone complaining about e-voting system problems is called a "wild-eyed activist" or an "open source zealot." It seems that without an actual argument, the researcher has fallen to simply insulting anyone who disagrees with him. He doesn't explain how to solve the problems that e-voting has introduced, but does make sure to say that user verified paper trails are a bad idea -- apparently because they could be just as susceptible to fraud. So, basically, if I understand his argument correctly, it appears to be that we should use poorly built, untested, problematic e-voting systems with no backup, because "that's progress." Can someone explain how having a backup system that would at least let you have a double check on the system could possibly be bad? Even if they are susceptible to fraud, you've now added two separate systems to count the votes, and any fraud would have to defeat both systems. It's ridiculous to think that it's just "ideological lions" pushing for better voting systems. This is an issue we should all be concerned about for the sake of democracy -- but, unfortunately, it looks like less than scrupulous think tanks are joining in on the side of the e-voting machine vendors.