Does anyone have confidence in eslate voting system?

[babylonsister]

The eSlate™ is an electronic voting system, also known as a Direct Record Electronic (DRE) voting system. The eSlate™ is manufactured, marketed and supported by Hart InterCivic (www.hartintercivic.com).

I did ask about paper ballots when voting this past hour and was looked at like I had two heads.

[WestHoustonDem]

1. Eslate is better than Diebold from a

technical standpoint. It doesn't use Access as the tabulator platform and data isn't transmitted by phone line, which makes it less susceptible to hacking. However the software is proprietary and therefore could be programmed to favor one outcome over another and we would never know it.

So it's not the worst, but we need a paper trail.

[babylonsister]

3. Thanks, WHD. When someone figures out how we

can demand a paper trail, please let me know!

[GOPisEvil]

2. It's far from the worst electronic voting machine, BUT...

...it's far from perfect as well. At least it isn't a touch screen. But, the software is proprietary and they don't have sufficient internal controls to prevent fraud.

Voter-verified paper ballots. The machine can produce the ballot, but the ballot has to be the instrument of record, NOT the electrons.

Hart InterCivic is an Austin-based company that started off making forms and paper ballots.

[babylonsister]

4. Thanks, GOP. Perhaps the fact that

Hart is from liberal Austin will make a difference, though I know we need paper! I did in fact question why we couldn't get a receipt a la ATM, but no one seemed real interested.

[PDittie]

5. Kicking this back up with a good post from

Tom the Lake Jackson Democrat:

http://hopeing.blogspot.com/2005/11/thursday-afternoon-brainwash-with-hart.html

[sonias]

6. Good post link PDittie

Count me in as not trusting any e-voting system. As long as their software is proprietary and we have no paper ballot produced by these systems, they are not trustworthy.

Our elections have essentially been outsourced to private firms, who are more interested in seeing their interests being advanced that having fair and transparent elections.

Sonia

[Lithos]

7. No

Most of these systems violate the basic patterns associated with handling transactive events and their associated traceability. The programmers here are definite hacks and the system thrown together with functionality determined by salesmen.

You have to realize that the users who are spec'ing these out are more interested in relieving their "pain" of having to be up late counting votes rather than looking out for the bigger issue of inviolable voting. It's about their needs, nothing more.

L-