My state offers advance voting, so I took advantage of it and voted today. Lines were shorter. The office was conveniently located a few minutes away. They’re still using those Diebold machines that don’t have a paper trail. But its an honor and a privledge to participate in our electoral process.
Along for the Journey, on God's Time...
will spotts says
October 24, 2006 at 7:14 pmWe have Diebold machines as well. I can’t figure out why — if the election is close I look for this to be a nightmare. I can’t fathom the thinking that eliminating a paper trail would improve confidence in an election.
kairos says
October 24, 2006 at 9:46 pmThanks, Will. Good to see you round here again.
I’m trying to think of a rational reason why one might not want a trail. Cost? It can’t be THAT much more cost effective. Securing the paper? Perhaps, but I’ve seen models of relatively secure systems. So I just don’t get it.
A concern: what if a programmer–republican or democrat–wanted to rig one or another of those machines, how could anyone know? I don’t know; I trust there are safeguards in place, but I wouldn’t a paper trail be so much better? And as you say, in a close call, it would be so helpful.
In any of these elections, the aim should be a full and accurate count of the actual votes cast. Technology can make that easier, but it shouldn’t make it seem less secure than other methods. I’m debating with myself, but maybe hanging chads would be preferable?
will spotts says
October 25, 2006 at 10:55 amTo me hanging chads would be preferrable.
One of the few things that can hold our country together in spite of sometimes sharp divisions is the *perception* that the process is fair. Without any paper trail at all that perception goes out the window. [Obviously the reality of a fair process is more important in principal — but the perception or fairness is a huge factor in convincing people that there is remedy for their concerns/complaints in the political process.]