My favorite part of my voting experience today was having a senior citizen explain computer security to me in an attempt to reassure me that my vote would be counted correctly. Of course the funny part about that is that I am a professional software developer and computer security is exactly what I am afraid of. I explained that I am not only concerned about a paper record to prevent tampering, but that I am also concerned about non-malicious errors that are inevitable when you allow humans to write computer software (of course all software is written by humans thus far).Well, Jackson, as a computer person, surely you realize that the computer can be programmed to show the selection of one candidate on the screen while registering the vote for another candidate, and the same thing can be done with any "paper record." From the thick file of "Liberals and the regrettable, though unintended, consequences" Dept.: The same people complaining about electronic voting now were those clamoring for electronic voting after FL2000 claiming, among other things, that punchcards were too difficult to use, that things like butterfly ballots were confusing, etc.
And you may not realize that every "controversial" county in FL2000 and EVERY county in Tennessee is controlled by Democrat election commissioners. Receipts at McDonalds are record of a transaction--a transaction that be subsequently confirmed by reference to a bank balance or credit card statement. That's not the case with the secret ballot. I have to say, it's ironic that folks from the Party that popularized Machine politics say we should return to a system where shop bosses et al could demand proof that you voted the right way.
I'm going to assume your complaints are in good faith and that you appreciate the value of ballot integrity, but can y'all let us know when you've made up your mind about all this?
2 comments:
You're wrong on this. Only stupid people advocate a take-home receipt. That's highly illegal, probably unconstitutional, and open to the sort of skullduggery you mention and worse.
But a paper ballot that's deposited in a secure ballot box can be checked against the machine count. Rep. Rush Holt wrote a bill that would call for surprise audits of a small percentage of precincts.
We all know that computers, being perverse and all, will sometimes take a dump with no skullduggery needed. In 2004, a whole county in North Carolina lost hours worth of votes because of some malfunction. Why would you not want to protect against a situation like that?
Well, take that up with the stupid people, not me.
I think that is a fine idea, by the way, and--believe you me, I want to protect against fraud.
But the practical problem I've heard concerning printing off receipts is the rampant problem with printers, toner, paper, misprints, misfeeds, etc. It can cause even more "irregularities" (or allegations of irregularities) to introduce another element into the process unless there is reason to believe it's necessary. Just because the CEO of Diebold happens to be a Republican is not sufficient reason in my book.
But hamletta, in all candor (I think I said this in my post) my biggest problem on this issue is that I don't think the Left can/will be satisfied. Criticism of Diebold, for now, is just a foil for fomenting distrust ("fear" is more alliterative) of the system and delegitimizing elections they're not winning. But thanks for your comment.
Post a Comment