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?
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Precision Blogger, 19 Mar 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

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    aNonMooseCowherd, 19 Mar 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.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      eskayp, 19 Mar 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."

      link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.