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?