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
    remote workers (elenabsl/Shutterstock.com)

    Post-pandemic IT leadership

    The rush to maximum telework did more than showcase the importance of IT -- it also forced them to rethink their own operations.

  • Management
    shutterstock image By enzozo; photo ID: 319763930

    Where does the TMF Board go from here?

    With a $1 billion cash infusion, relaxed repayment guidelines and a surge in proposals from federal agencies, questions have been raised about whether the board overseeing the Technology Modernization Fund has been scaled to cope with its newfound popularity.

Stay Connected