Letter: Proving the voting preference difficult

Regarding "House defeats paper ballot funding": The author missed the central argument against Electronic Voting Machines or DREs, and that is that they do not leave any evidence of how the vote was actually cast, and are thus unauditable and unverifiable by the voter. Finally there is no way to conduct a recount, only a reprint (or the same information previously printed). A programming error or malicious software could change the vote in any possible manner and NO ONE would be the wiser.

Beside, the public should be told that they can have access to the touch screen interface without sacrificing accountability by using ballot marking devices if they so desire.

Such sloppy reporting on this technology by a technology-oriented magazine is, shall I say, dreadful.

Anonymous

What do you think? Paste a comment in the box below (registration required), or send your comment to [email protected] (subject line: Blog comment) and we'll post it.

Featured

  • FCW Perspectives
    zero trust network

    Why zero trust is having a moment

    Improved technologies and growing threats have agencies actively pursuing dynamic and context-driven security.

  • Workforce
    online collaboration (elenabsl/Shutterstock.com)

    Federal employee job satisfaction climbed during pandemic

    The survey documents the rapid change to teleworking postures in government under the COVID-19 pandemic.

Stay Connected