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 letters@fcw.com (subject line: Blog comment) and we'll post it.

Featured

  • IT Modernization
    Eisenhower Executive Office Building (Image: Wikimedia Commons)

    OMB's user guide to the MGT Act

    The Office of Management and Budget is working on a rules-of-the-road document to cover how agencies can seek and use funds under the MGT Act.

  • global network (Pushish Images/Shutterstock.com)

    As others see us -- a few surprises

    A recent dinner with civil servants from Asia delivered some interesting insights, Steve Kelman writes.

  • FCW Perspectives
    cloud (Singkham/Shutterstock.com)

    A smarter approach to cloud

    Advances in cloud technology are shifting the focus toward choosing the right tool for the job and crafting solutions that truly modernize systems.

Stay Connected

FCW Update

Sign up for our newsletter.

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.