Ohio Elections Official Calls Machines Flawed (New York Times)
It has become increasingly well-known and accepted that the electronic voting machines many states have relied on are just a sad piece of technology. Those who have studied these machines have known for years that many popular models of these machines are both unreliable and insecure, but election officials have long ignored the available evidence, and the public has been left with election results that are literally unverifiable.
This New York Times opinion piece from January 2007 has an excellent history of how the tide has turned in favor of verifiable election results, mostly due to the work of a successful grassroots reform movement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I can come up with nothing but cynical reasons that someone would not be in favor the THE most verifiable voting system in a democracy like ours. Am I missing something? At a time when there are many complex, confusing issues, this does not seem like one of them. I hope we see legislation mandating paper-trail machines and random audits after every election. If we can't be sure of election results, it seems like everything else comes into question after that...
Post a Comment