The Post ran an interesting op-ed on verifying electronic ballot. Specifically, challenging the author challenged the use of paper-reciepts.
Paper verification looks good on, well, paper, but it is not the
cure-all some of its proponents believe it to be. More than two
centuries of U.S. elections have shown us that paper is at least as
susceptible to chicanery as electronic records. Paper ballots can be
modified, counterfeited or destroyed with relative ease. It is not at
all clear that they constitute a more reliable medium than electronic
records.
Have we forgotten the days when ballot boxes could be discovered floating in nearby rivers shortly after an election?
My mother volunteers with the League of Women Voters and backs up this sentiment. I think the opposition to electronic voting machines stems in good part from familarity. Those of us that regularly work with software are all to aware of its shortfalls and the potential for mischief. However, most of us have no real idea of all the other ways voting can be manipulated.
The writer, Timothy J. Ryan, suggests that paper reciepts have problems of their own. Namely, a ~20% fail rate and a slow counting process. He suggests a few alternatives:
A system called Prime III, developed by researchers at Auburn University,
would employ a separate electronic "witness" in each voting booth. The
witness, which would operate independently of the DRE machine, could
more efficiently double-check the DRE's tallying of votes while
safeguarding privacy and being more accessible to the disabled.
Another system, Punchscan, designed by a team at the University of Maryland,
offers an exciting array of features: After casting their ballots,
voters can go to a computer and use a receipt to view their individual
ballots online. An exceptionally clever ballot format allows voters to
see the marks they made on their ballots in such a way that they can
recognize that the marks are in fact theirs, while still obscuring
their specific candidate selections, as is necessary to prevent
vote-buying. While a simple paper trail ensures that the voter's
choices were accurate at one instant in time, the Punchscan system goes
much further. Voters can confirm not only that their ballots were cast
correctly but also that they were faithfully counted after the election.
I figure it's worth being open to this sort of thing. After all, those of us that deal with technology regularly are all too aware how obnoxiously unreliable printers are.
Recent Comments