NYT: The Results Are in and the Winner Is . . . or Maybe Not

[gristy]

Here's an editorial in today's NY Times. Bev mentioned in this thread that they are doing a series of editorials.

The end of the editorial summarizes the issue pretty well, though they struggle to be clear while using the term "receipt".

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/opinion/29SUN3.html

A healthy democracy must avoid even the appearance of corruption. The Georgia and Nebraska elections fail this test. Once voting software is certified, it should not be changed - not eight times, not once. A backup voting method should be available, so if electronic machines fail or are compromised shortly before an election, they can be dropped.

Votes must be counted by people universally perceived as impartial. States should not buy machines from companies that have ties to political parties, and recent company executives should not be running for elections on those machines.

And every voter should see a paper receipt. This "voter-verified paper trail" should be retained, and made available for recounts - a low-tech check on the reliability of electronic voting. Most Americans would not do business with a bank that refused to provide written statements or A.T.M. receipts. We should be no less demanding at the polls.

After all, as Tom Stoppard has observed, "It's not the voting that's democracy, it's the counting."

on edit: I just now have discovered that the NY Times has a web page dedicated to the perils of electronic voting. The link to this page is prominently displayed on their editorial page. It is interesting to note that their first editorial on this subject was Jan. 18, 2004. So while it is disappointing they took so long to address this issue, they appear to be making up for lost time!

[Dudley_DUright]

1. An even more appropriate quote from none other than Josef Stalin

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."