Reader comments
Paper ballots? Never again

A major problem is there has been no real punishment for voter fraud, so why not?

After reading how republican fixed voting in Ohio I want a paper tail.

I do not agree with my vote possibly being tampered with in any way, but like you said there is no fool proof system. But considering that the voting machines have been known to be hacked into makes me worried and I do not want my vote altered or changed.
It is a sad day when you become afraid of your governement officals because they have become so corrupt.

Governments continue to award exclusive contracts to major voting machine manufacturers, such as Diebold. Diebold's CEO, as you may recall, openly committed to fixing the election for Republicans in Ohio. Aside from such blatant conflict of interest, the real problem with voting machines is that they rest on proprietary software code, which people are not allowed to inspect for themselves. I say electronic voting can work, but we must make the code open source--allow everyone to inspect it, fix the bugs, offer improved versions, and so on. The same genius which helps make Linux, Apache, and Mozilla superior products to proprietary versions is the genius we need when entrusting our most precious democratic exercise to ones and zeros.

Anonymous,

Utah has a paper trail for its voting machines.

Thanks.

-Truth

The machines seem to be less of a problem, especially if the code were allowed to be inspected, than absentee ballots, non-citizen voters, dead voters, and such. Your chances of being prosecuted for voter fraud is less than being hit by lightning on a clear day. When states like New York are willing to give a driver's license and register people to vote without proper ID, machines seem to be a smaller problem.

The problem with e-voting machines is that the average poll worker is not capable of understanding, much less verifying the security of the system. On the flip side, far too many 20 year old computer hackers can manipulate them undetected. Paper ballots are not perfect, but anyone with an IQ above room temperature can figure out security.

The so-called "paper trail" is worthless. Last election the SLCo Commission, in their role as board of elections wanted to verify the accuracy of a few randomly selected precincts by comparing the paper trail with the e-count. SLCo Clerk Swenson said no and the council caved.

I also note the growing number of precincts that do not have a polling location on election day due to the cost of these machine. They have to vote early, or by mail. That just isn't right. EVERY voter deserves a physical polling place on election day. Paper ballots are inexpensive and easy.

Of course, NONE of this matter so long as we do not require proof of citizenship to register to vote and positive ID to actually cast a ballot.

Since the cheating (Diebold variety) is likely to go towards the Republicans, I guess the DesNews can tolerate a bit of fraud, eh?

"The so-called "paper trail" is worthless. Last election the SLCo Commission, in their role as board of elections wanted to verify the accuracy of a few randomly selected precincts by comparing the paper trail with the e-count. SLCo Clerk Swenson said no and the council caved."

Uh... that doesn't make the paper trail worthless, it makes the Clerk and the City Council worthless.

Democrats tried for a year to fix the presidential election in 2000, and in spite of their best efforts to overthrow the mandate of the people, if it was not for the paper ballots.......

This reminds me. Does anyone else, besides John, remember the whole hanging chad fiasco? What a joke the whole system had seem to become. We live in a democratic society. I feel priviledged to be able to vote. I exercise my right to vote at every election. I need to know my vote counts. That said, I do have faith that we're working toward finding fair ways to cast a vote. Maybe the e-voting needs to be fine- tuned, but I don't think that makes paper ballots any better.

I would much rather prefer inadvertent "hanging chads" to potential, undetected, willful manipulation of the entire voting system through electronic voting. The issue is that with greater complexity comes more difficulty for non-expert oversight. Computerized voting is too complex for easy oversight for even the most astute elected official--not to mention the volunteer poll official. If it is going to be non-expert volunteers that make the system go, then we need a non-complicated, paper system. Complexity leads to a lack in accountability.