Paper trail? Screw e-voting!!

[SHRED]

While I am totally in favor of a paper trail I am confused about what it would do.

So you get a receipt. So what.
Well, the vote goes in and it could still get digitally changed, in route.
For instance:
The results come in and our candidate loses by a slim margin.
Who is and how are you gonna contest it? So in every close race we hand count the paper trail?
If that is the case then why don't we hand count ALL OUR VOTES and take a week or so to do it? Equal teams from all parties would be involved.

I think this instant gratification--T.V. culture mentality--is killing our country.
Why not take our time and have 3 days to vote and 2 weeks to hand count. WTF is wrong with that?
I DO NOT trust this E-voting bullshit what-so-ever!!!

[batchdem04]

1. i agree..

what would a paper trail really do? they could still steal just as easily.

unless...once you get a paper reciept, u register it with some independent website or 1-800 number. but even that has some problems...

[LauraT28]

2. E-voting can't work

There are some things that require simplicity... PAPER voting is one of them. Any electronic voting can be tampered with... hell paper ballots are tampered with or "lost" (58K missing absentee ballots in FL).

But at least paper votes can be recounted. I don't know what the answer is, but we have to get these electronic pieces of shit OUT!

Laura

[PaulaFarrell]

3. A paper trail could work if

the 'receipt' was deposited at the polling place like a regular ballot. Voters could check the recipt against what they thought they voted and either spoil it or deposit it. Then the receipts could be counted if there were any questions about the results. This would work - maybe this is what we should push for ? A verifiable e-vote?

[ZR2]

4. There is only one way to ensure complete faith in the electronic machines

A double receipt method with camera surveilance.

The receipt would be the kind used in credit card machines which automatically print a "carbon copy". One copy is given to the voter, and one copy is automatically deposited in the machine. Now, the camera is there to make sure nobody with the intent to disrupt elections could claim the machine recorded the vote incorrectly. If someone says "The machine changed my vote" it would be very simple and easy for the precinct chief to review the tape of the vote and compare it to the receipt.

Once the electronic votes are tabulated, a random sampling of machine copy receipts vs. the electronic results are done on the machines. If a difference occurs, an automatic recount via the machine receits is done.

[SHRED]

5. Again I say

What is the GD hurry?!

Why the hell do we need to cave in to the media culture?
Only one reason for e-voting and that is for speed to get the results to boost the ratings in the T.V and radio markets.

LET'S SLOW DOWN and get this right.
This is OUR democracy so let's take it back!

[ZR2]

6. Oh, I totally agree

Elections must be accurate. A few days to ensure accuracy is not a problem at all. The electoral college doesn't meet unril some time in December, as long as we have an accurate answer by then, it doesn't matter how long it takes to count every vote.

That being said, Electronic voting is just a way to speed things along and still be able to maintain accuracy, as long as that accuracy is double checked.

[meow2u3]

7. And GET RID OF PROPRIETARY (SECRET) SOFTWARE!!

If we end up stuck with e-voting, we should demand that only open source software be used. At least the public can check to see if the vote tabulation code has been altered, hacked, or if viruses, worms, and/or trojan horses have been planted.

[ZR2]

8. Useless

Nothing prevents the code from being altered before it's loaded into the machine.