Electronic Voting Machines - WHY???

Djinn · 01-09-2008, 01:13 PM

Look, I'm a computer geek, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I used to have the mentality that any product could be made better by finding a way to plug it into a computer. Now I'm a bit older, and I realize that while computers can (and do) improve a lot of things, it's not a universal law that computerizing processes is always a good idea.

That said, I have a question about the new electronic voting machines that I've never seen anyone answer: Why?

In the U.S., we voted with lever-based mechanical machines that have been in widespread use (and virtually unchanged design) since the 1930s, through to the 1990s. These machines are large and unwieldy, but they worked. They didn't break very often, and each machine was serviceable for multiple decades. And what's more, in more than a half-century of widespread use, there are no reported incidents of fraud related to the manipulation of a lever-based mechanical voting machine.

Instead of arguing over the best way to develop and implement computerized voting, why not go back to what works? Why not start manufacturing the old-fashioned, mechanical voting machines? Modernize them a bit, of course. Perhaps use lighter-weight materials where possible. And engineer an internal paper record of votes in addition to the normal counters. But the only electrical component involved should be the lightbulb behind the curtain.

Can anyone give me one good reason why voting machines should be computerized? Mechanical machines last longer, have been extensively field-tested, and are apparently resistant to fraud or manipulation. Why re-invent the wheel?

Morpheus · 01-09-2008, 01:54 PM

I basically agree with you, I think Canada votes with paper and pencil, why can't we? There are computer systems that claim to be secure voting. The NY Times just had an oped on a safe/secure voting system.

Jackl · 01-09-2008, 01:58 PM

Worse thing I hate about diebold and other systems is how secretive they are. No one knows the source code, there is zero transparency, and little oversight. The one time they were caught with their pants down in the California case they simply tried to cover it up.

Freedom for All · 01-09-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Djinn

Look, I'm a computer geek, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I used to have the mentality that any product could be made better by finding a way to plug it into a computer. Now I'm a bit older, and I realize that while computers can (and do) improve a lot of things, it's not a universal law that computerizing processes is always a good idea.

That said, I have a question about the new electronic voting machines that I've never seen anyone answer: Why?

In the U.S., we voted with lever-based mechanical machines that have been in widespread use (and virtually unchanged design) since the 1930s, through to the 1990s. These machines are large and unwieldy, but they worked. They didn't break very often, and each machine was serviceable for multiple decades. And what's more, in more than a half-century of widespread use, there are no reported incidents of fraud related to the manipulation of a lever-based mechanical voting machine.

Instead of arguing over the best way to develop and implement computerized voting, why not go back to what works? Why not start manufacturing the old-fashioned, mechanical voting machines? Modernize them a bit, of course. Perhaps use lighter-weight materials where possible. And engineer an internal paper record of votes in addition to the normal counters. But the only electrical component involved should be the lightbulb behind the curtain.

Can anyone give me one good reason why voting machines should be computerized? Mechanical machines last longer, have been extensively field-tested, and are apparently resistant to fraud or manipulation. Why re-invent the wheel?

Because they're more reliable than the mechanical machines. The mechanical machines rely on paper punch cards, and we all saw how easily the cheating Democrats messed with those when Gore tried to steal the Floriduh election.

And OF COURSE you can cheat with a mechanical system. Easy as hell. In a polling place with two machines, go to one and jigger it so that whenever anyone presses the A lever, only A gets punched, but when the B lever is pushed it also pokes a hole for A. Ballots with both A and B punched out are invalidated. And with two machines, no one would say that Precinct X was strange, no one voted for B, because valid B's from the other machine would show up.

It's strange that the people pretending to hate the electronic voting platform have so easily forgotten the ease with which the Democrats cheated the old punch card technology in Floriduh.

Djinn · 01-09-2008, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

Because they're more reliable than the mechanical machines. The mechanical machines rely on paper punch cards, and we all saw how easily the cheating Democrats messed with those when Gore tried to steal the Floriduh election.

Mechanical machines do NOT rely on paper punch cards.

Quote:

And OF COURSE you can cheat with a mechanical system. Easy as hell. In a polling place with two machines, go to one and jigger it so that whenever anyone presses the A lever, only A gets punched, but when the B lever is pushed it also pokes a hole for A. Ballots with both A and B punched out are invalidated. And with two machines, no one would say that Precinct X was strange, no one voted for B, because valid B's from the other machine would show up.

You say it's easy as hell, but in 50+ years of use, has anyone ever been able to do it? And once again, there's no "hole poking" going on. There are no punchcards, no paper, in mechanical voting machines. Only mechanical counters.

If they ever made NEW mechanical voting machines, they should use the regular counters, in addition to leaving a paper trail. This could be done by allowing the voter to see the paper recording (behind plexiglass) before it is dropped into the lockbox.