Georgia Defends Electronic Voting Machines Despite 243-Percent Turnout In One Precinct (arstechnica.com)

"In Chicago, it used to be claimed that even death couldn't stop a person from voting," writes Slashdot reader lunchlady55. "But in the Deep South, there are new reports of discrepancies in voter turnout with the approval of new electronic voting systems." Ars Technica reports: [I]f any state is a poster child for terrible election practices, it is surely Georgia. Bold claims demand bold evidence, and unfortunately there's plenty; on Monday, McClatchy reported a string of irregularities from the state's primary election in May, including one precinct with a 243-percent turnout.

McClatchy's data comes from a federal lawsuit filed against the state. In addition to the problem in Habersham County's Mud Creek precinct, where it appeared that 276 registered voters managed to cast 670 ballots, the piece describes numerous other issues with both voter registration and electronic voting machines. (In fact it was later corrected to show 3,704 registered voters in the precinct.) Multiple sworn statements from voters describe how they turned up at their polling stations only to be turned away or directed to other precincts. Even more statements allege incorrect ballots, frozen voting machines, and other issues. "George is one of four states in the U.S. that continues to use voting machines with no ability to provide voters a paper record so that they can verify the machine counted their vote correctly," the report adds.

Comments

What good is the paper?

[jfdavis668]

The machine could be faulty, print out exactly who you voted for, yet still record your vote wrong. How would having a piece of paper help? You can't go back and change your vote.

Re: What good is the paper?

[ShanghaiBill]

Assuming you get to keep the paper, it makes it possible to audit the results to a much higher degree of certainty.

Not really. It is just a receipt, not a list of who/what you voted for. You can use it to confirm that your vote was counted, but not that the vote was recorded correctly, nor that additional fake ballots were not also counted.

Opponents of electronic voting talk about "paper ballots" like they are some magical thing than ensures fair elections. That is nonsense.

It is easy to have a verified vote.

It is easy to have a secret vote.

It is very, very difficult to have both.

Re: What good is the paper?

[currently_awake]

Make your choices on the computer. Print out ballot. Verify choices printed. If wrong do over or complain. Once satisfied put ballot into ballot box to be counted. There is no need to have the computer count the votes or transmit them to a central location or be connected to a network.

Re: What good is the paper?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's no longer a truly anonymous vote.

Consider: How does your proposed scheme prevent someone threatening me unless I give them the receipt that proves I voted the way they wanted me to?

Re: What good is the paper?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Paper ballots have all kinds of problems, though, including people marking two different candidates,

This at least shifts the source of the problem to 'idiot who marks two candidates' and away from 'random programmer somewhere unknowable, who can do unverifiable things to the software.'

and sometimes needing recounts.

This is a feature, and a very desirable feature at that.

Re:Why not just count them?

[SirSlud]

The US is founded on the principle that if there's a right way to do something, they have the freedom to also do it 49 worse ways.