Skip to main content

View Diary: Voting-machines tested, report up on CALIF Secy of State website (136 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  actually (4.00)
    what we need is just a paper freaking ballot.  we don't NEED computer voting.  technology is a wonderful thing and I sit here surrounded by high end Mac equipment and cool phones and nifty stuff but what we need to vote is a truly unhackable paper and a pencil, and an optical scanner to count them, with the option for human re-counts if the thing is close.

    there are plenty of role models for this, notably Canada.

    http://www.katemckinnon.com

    by kate mckinnon on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 12:14:04 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I'm Canadian BTW (4.00)
      and I agree!  I just didn't want to tell Americans "You should use our system!" lest that not go over so hot (although I do think you should ;)

      FYI, we have non-partisan election officers - having a candidates chief-of-election committee person also as the official certifying results would not fly here.  

      Also, our federal elections are run by an arms-length federal body (elections Canada) not individually by the provinces.  The process of letting States run the election for President is byzantine IMO and adds a lot of room for confusion and fraud.  50 different systems means the media never really focuses on the flaws on any particular one.  

      I will confess a drawback in using the Canadian system in America 'as is', each voter only makes typically 1 choice on our ballots, as your member of parliament is the only direct vote Canadians have, so I don't know how well our system would work if we had to pick a provincial MPP, a premier, a mayor, city councilor and school board trustee as it seems like Americans do during election day.

      Maybe you just need to seperate your Federal, State and local elections to different days.  

    •  Ummm... (3.75)
      ...lots of the vulnerability comes from the transfers to the central tabulators, I think. We have optical scan here in Mass, and I trust it for recount, but what's to keep it accurate once tallies are sent and aggregated? I thought GEMS was shown to be eminently hackable.

      Also, about the electronic paper trail- wouldn't it be easy to have it print one thing, but record another?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site