US Paperless Voting Bill Advances

A couple of weeks back we discussed the effort to require voting paper trails in US federal elections. Now WhiteBoxVoter writes: "Democrats and Republicans in the US House of Representatives agreed today on a compromise that will push through a bill banning paperless voting machines and requiring a voter-verified paper record for every vote in the country, after government sanctioned hackers showed how they could break into all three of the top voting systems used in California." The NYTimes reported on Thursday that even if it passes the House, voting-machine reform that would take effect before the 2008 elections may die in the Senate.

Comments

Why?

[RAMMS EIN]

``voting-machine reform that would take effect before the 2008 elections may die in the Senate.''

Because, for some reason, politicians (not only in the USA) seem to be opposed to verifiable, reliable voting methods.

Re:Why?

[amRadioHed]

Yes, and what a reliable recount that is to. What an amazing technological advance it will be to be able to instantly recount the same corrupted vote totals whenever you want.

Re:Why?

[MillionthMonkey]

Well, yeah, because if they allow the technology to mature,

Voting technology is centuries old and is already constrained by game theory to be as mature as it can get- if all players play optimally in a struggle for power within a democracy, they will necessarily have to assume that all other players share the wish to gain an unfair advantage by perverting the election process. Absent any compelling reason for a change voting technology cannot be "improved" upon without eroding confidence in the integrity of elections and shrouding them in suspicion. And no electronic system will ever be able to dispel mutual suspicion as effectively as paper.

When we run out of trees and can't print ballots anymore, perhaps the appearance of a conflict of interest will go away. Until then, the appearance means it is a conflict of interest- without a very good reason for screwing with them, it is simply not safe to assume that the true motive behind any effort to "improve" elections isn't theft. This makes the way we vote now unimprovable unless it becomes well understood by everyone involved that we need to improve it for a good reason. No such reason currently exists.

Bubbleheads on cable TV have sold many of us on the idea that democracy is in crisis somehow if they can't announce a winner within hours of election night- which is totally absurd. Recounts are quite cheap, we have months to get it right, and if we rush, the losing side has a legitimate, reasonable complaint that the election might have been unfairly decided. To put it delicately.

then no longer will one candidate be able to waste tax payer money by suing for another vote count.

As a taxpayer I am quite willing to pay for a vote count. An undisturbed recount in 2000 for example could have saved me a lot of money.

One click of the mouse and voila, there is your recount. Want another? *click*

That makes a lot of sense- optimize for speed when the demand is for accuracy. I weed guys like you out in interviews.

Re:Why?

[KylePflug]

I've worked in a recount. I'd much rather have the corrupt count be at least efficiently generated, instead of through the sweat of misinformed, underinstructed, and ultimately ignored temp workers. The 2004 Washington gubenatorial debacle is just one of a million examples of the seemingly obvious truth that if the first vote was too close to call, recounting it is merely reshuffling the same deck of dubious cards. Just because you counted again doesn't mean the same statistical errors and intrinsic problems in vote counting aren't there.

Re:Why?

[Sunburnt]

Bubbleheads on cable TV have sold many of us on the idea that democracy is in crisis somehow if they can't announce a winner within hours of election night- which is totally absurd.

Thank you! This need on the news providers' part, to "call" the election before that night's Late Show, has somehow infiltrated our mass culture to the point that plenty of folks accepted the dominant Republican talking point for the 200 recount: "But it'll take tiiiiiime! And mooooney!"

For chrissakes, people, the election is held over two months before the inauguration. We've got time. Perhaps the news providers are just concerned that our country's population of historical amnesiacs will forget there was an election by the time a fair hand count could be completed, but that's hardly a reason to fuck up peoples' expectations of their democracy.

Why must we go with e-voting?

[PianoComp81]

I don't see why we must go completely electronic. In the county I live in, we fill in very large circles on paper using a marker. That paper is then fed into a machine that electronically counts the votes. It's just as efficient (time-wise) as completely electronic voting, but it doesn't require the complexity that the e-voting machines require. It also allows for an easy-to-read paper-trail system (unlike the "hanging chad" problem back in the 2000 election) for when a recount is required.

Re:Probably offtopic, but

[imemyself]

Maybe, but I think a lot of people would just go party or something instead of using the time off to vote. And companies are required by law to let their employees have time off to go vote. With all of the news coverage on election day, I think that just about everyone is aware of what is going on, even if they don't care enough to vote. It also wouldn't be possible for all companies to close. What about news stations, telecommunications providers, restaurants, security and custodial staff in many companies, etc.

I'm not saying that making it a holiday would hurt, I just don't think it would actually get too many more people to vote.

No difference between Democrats and Republicans?

[greg_barton]

I read this idea often on slashdot: There's no real difference between Democrats and Republicans.

So I ask those who say this: Would this legislation have come to be in the House under the Republicans? (Answer: it didn't) Yes, it was a bipartisan compromise, but we all know that the compromise wouldn't be possible with the Republicans in charge.