electronic voting
Conceptually, an electronic voting machine should be a simple thing to make, for a country that has the technology, resources and people with sufficient brainpower to send a spirit to Mars, and so also to plan a manned mission to the distant Red Planet, it shouldn't be very difficult to create what is essentially a counter on steroids. Electronic voting has already been used in India, I've used it myself, roughly four years ago, which increases my incredulity, why is there so much bad air, insinuation and, in general, suspicion of the process here in the United States? This Op-Ed column in today's NYTimes offers some talking points,

Questionable programmers aside, even a cursory look at the behavior of the major voting machine companies reveals systematic flouting of the rules intended to ensure voting security. Software was modified without government oversight; machine components were replaced without being rechecked. And here's the crucial point: even if there are strong reasons to suspect that electronic machines miscounted votes, nothing can be done about it. There is no paper trail; there is nothing to recount.

What about the expense? Let's put it this way: we're spending at least $150 billion to promote democracy in Iraq. That's about $1,500 for each vote cast in the 2000 election. How can we balk at spending a small fraction of that sum to secure the credibility of democracy at home?

posted by ubaid - Friday, January 23, 2004 at 12:01 PM - 0 comments - post anonymously