New Jersey Court Won't Block Electronic Voting

SilentChris writes "A New Jersey court has denied an e-voting ban request made by Rutgers University on behalf of a voter. The plantifs argued the machines 'are "inherently insecure" and do not offer a backup paper record of each vote, which means there is no way to verify ballots if there were a recount' (much the same as arguments made on Slashdot). The court responded by saying the 'alternative is worse. Every professional agrees that a paper ballot is a formula for disaster'. Despite the setback, the case hasn't been officially dismissed. However, the plantiffs will need to take action today to have an effect on next week's presidential election."

Comments

It's getting a bit close

[cheeseSource]

With less than a week away, it seems like it would be difficult to add paper trails even to e-voting machines. Next Tuesday will be an interestingly chaotic day to say the least, especially with the R&D's swarm of lawyers standing by...

Do they?

[Troed]

Every professional agrees that a paper ballot is a formula for disaster'

Except ... it works in the rest of the world - even in areas larger than the USA.

Re:Do they?

[Ohreally_factor]

Every professional agrees that a paper ballot is a formula for disaster

For the electronic voting equipment companies' bottom line.

Ballot Box Observers

[lynx_user_abroad]

One wonders if one could make a persuasive argument that electronic voting booths are illegal because they deny third parties an opportunity to observe the ballot box?

Does anyone know of any state law (NJ or otherwise) which guarantees independent observers the right to verify the "ballot box" is empty before voting begins, to observe the box at all times during vote casting, verify that the box is sealed after election is closed, and observe the counting of the votes post-election? If so, I think an electronic ballot box would fail all those tests.

Re:Too bad the Judge doesn't know tech from his ar

[CrimsonAvenger]

How are you then going to prove that you voted for who you say you voted for?

Hmm, just out of curiousity, how would you prove that you voted for who you say you voted for with a paper ballot? Not like they let you take a copy of your ballot home with you, or the orginal ballots have names inscribed on them, is it?

I haven't used a paper ballot in nearly 20 years. But seems to me that they didn't have serial numbers that were cross-indexed with the voter rolls then, so switching ballots out wouldn't have been all that hard if someone had wanted to.

Frankly, the added security of paper ballots isn't really there. All it does is add an alternative method of doing a recount. Which would be useful in conjunction with electronic voting, but when you eliminate the electronic voting, you're still back to only one way to count the ballots.

I am worried for the country

[mpost4]

There is so much hate out there on *BOTH* sides, that no mater who wins there is going to be major back lash from the other side.

I see so few people voting for some one, I see most people voting against the other. I am at the point I think we should abolish the current 2 partys and see how the 3rd parties do, I wil back the constution party.

But this just shows how fscked up the system has become now. I wish that they would go to the voting boxes we have here in the Pittsburgh area older, but I don't think you ever heard of said problems in Pittsburgh, or it could be Pittsburgh is a one party system ares (you are eather out of office or a democrate here)