Why Voting Machine Paper Trails Aren’t Enough

[kster]

Principled Profit

snip.....Electronic ballot systems with paper backup have caused numerous problems in actual elections, where voters reported that their choice didn’t show up on the screen, where tens of thousands of ballots didn’t register a vote (as in Sarasota County, Florida, or simply where the system is not well designed to enable voters to easily check their wishes against the receipt (and what happens when a voter wants to report problems anyway?). None of these issues even occur if we start with a marked paper ballot.
Most importantly, the physical paper ballots can always be recounted by hand if there is suspicion of problems.

If they were generated electronically, however, and there’s fraud or error in the set-up, we have much less of a guarantee that the ballots represent actual voter intent.

Of course, scanners and tabulators can be hacked as well. Thus, I would hope for nationwide legislation not only specifying paper ballots on durable stock with durable ink, but also mandating a hand-count before certification; electronic scanners, counters, and tabulators should be considered nothing more than a preliminary, unverified, indication of the results–good for generating news reports but not to be relied on to actually elect people.

Oh yes, and I think the cost of switching to these much more reliable systems should be borne by the companies that brought us these unreliable machines in the first place. It should not fall on the taxpayer to pay for the clean up of this very preventable mess.



http://principledprofit.com/good-business-blog/2007/01/21/why-voting-machine-paper-trails-arent-enough/

[galloglas]

1. K'n'R # 5

Seconded.

[AtLiberty]

2. They're not enough...

...when election officials REFUSE to allow them to be part of mandatory retabulations and recounts.

And please don't tell me that this is illegal. I know it is. Just add this to the list.

[Kurovski]

3. K&R

Geez, kster, are you getting any sleep at all these days? :-)


"...I think the cost of switching to these much more reliable systems should be borne by the companies that brought us these unreliable machines in the first place. It should not fall on the taxpayer to pay for the clean up of this very preventable mess."

Nice. When I first read it I thought it said "...a very PROFITABLE mess..."

[autorank]

4. All machine counting is corruptable - at risk for fraud.

The objections to voting machines arise for two reasons: 1) we've had so many questionable elections and 2) the vendors, touch screen or optical scan, are out front about their bias towards the right wing, i.e., the Republican Party.

Great article - malicious code occurs prior to the so called "verified paper ballot" on touch screens therefore it's reasonable to assume the verificaiton is misleading as well.

I like these lines:

"None of these issues even occur if we start with a marked paper ballot. Most importantly, the physical paper ballots can always be recounted by hand if there is suspicion of problems.

Of course, scanners and tabulators can be hacked as well. "

I respect the people who are calling for a phased approch to paper ballots but I don't agree. I think we start with what we know will work, hand counted paper ballots. Here's the petition. No groups behind it, just indinvidual calling for a remedy for the lousy election system we have everywhere.

[kster]

5. I am Kster and I approve of this petition,

because I signed it.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/282696758?ltl=1169435192

People in the DU, know that the machines need to be removed and the Ballots Hand Counted by the People at the Precinct level, but a whole lot of other people don't fully understand that, yet, what an article like this does is draws a picture for those people (who don't have the time in a day) to know and understand why we should get rid of the machines, and do a FULL HAND COUNT.

"electronic scanners, counters, and tabulators should be considered nothing more than a preliminary, unverified, indication of the results–good for generating news reports but not to be relied on to actually elect people."

I'm not sure if the article condones the use of machines, but I do know it explains allot about them. :)

[caruso]

6. check out this link from TIA

TIA and his statistical analyis of eclection fraud: http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm

[hunter]

7. The "toilet paper" description is a good one.

They are not only unreliable and very hard to count by hand, it is also very easy to print out fraudulent toilet paper ballots that match fraudulent electronic results. The order of toilet paper ballots is also not randomized, opening up the possibility of matching votes to voters, and all the ugliness that implies.

Hand marked paper ballots are much more difficult to swap out for fraudulent ballots.

I'm not against electronic machines for handicapped voters, but they should produce a paper ballot identical to the hand marked ballots other voters are using.