We told them so.

John says:

Many activists and legislators now question both the wisdom of relying on software to record votes, and the degree to which our elections depend on computerized voting systems and the manufacturers that sell them

True John, but lest we burn the software along with the books, let us remember.

Remember that software and computers are, like a book, and extension of the authors and bookbinders.

It can be good, bad, and inbetween. And it can be the best.

And the best is what should be reserved for elections.

We have arguably the worst software and hardware doing elections. Until a real system is developed to replace the mickey mouse systems now in vogue, we really have no choice but to go to paper ballots and real election administrators.

But we can hope that our election sophistication improves to a place where we could use software and hardware to do the dull work of adding up columns. After all, ATM and other column adders are reliable.

Why, when it comes to political power, are we so inept at being honest during software and hardware development?

We rarely see errors from ATMs. I've never experienced one - and I check - in hundreds of family uses over the years. I've not heard of anyone who has experienced an error using the automated teller or ATM.
The technology most certainly exists to do elections legally, cleanly and dependably. Buy why? Why do we need them? I would say, for the purpose of getting a perfect count, and fast.
At the same time, I'd say that the count should be dependant on all the things we've been agitating for: VVPB, random audit, Paper ballots being the vote of record. Total hand count for any close election. Other standards should be in place for certifying voting equipment and any other standards needed for assurance of fairness. All companies that did not follow the law as it is now in producing their current machines and service should be banned from any future election business.

shw

Everybody in this country should be required to watch "Hacking the Vote." Twice.

"... Dredd said ...
... Shannon Williford said..."

Is this what I refer to as "an implicit faith in e-voting"?...

The question I ask everyone and anyone on this matter is this: Do you (or anyone else) have any suggestions for an e-voting scheme that will work?

Because without concrete ideas for workable systems in paw your statements fall into the category of faith... faith that all it will require is "better technology". And that faith is literally what got us into the e-voting mess in the first place.

However vast and evil the extent of the "e-voting conspiracy" (as seen by bloggers ) it would not have succeeded without this peculiar vulnerability in the people making good-faith efforts at dealing with the problems involved in balloting... this underlying faith in technology.

Without workable concepts to present the most you can do is reinforce the EVM corporations' current posture... "just give us another chance and we'll get it right next time."

That's their current posture with their millions of dollars curently working hard on Capitol Hill in damage control.

You need to present workable concepts, concepts that we can trust our government to, instead of just saying "it can be done."

Hint: Even e-voting researchers have not cracked this one when last I checked. They are trying, and their efforts vastly exceed Diebold's, Sequoia's etc etc... but they ain't quite got it yet.

Although reports circulate about how much better the experimental technologies are than the Windoze crap currently masquerading as e-voting systems... that's not the hard part. Have you found one research group that has said their system is ready for prime-time and whose concepts have been independently reviewed and tested?

Note: I did not even ask for tested systems... I'm just asking if "a way forward for e-voting" has been found.

I'm happy to listen if something new has turned up since I last looked... but you might want to read up on some of the currently intractable problems with e-voting at freedom-to-tinker.com.

Hmmm... and speaking of Freedom to Tinker... this Diebold tidbit just in:

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1113

Zapper, I've said before, they can use 'scanner type' electronic voting systems for their 'instant gratifcation', as long as its for the 'preliminary tally' only, not until all the votes are counted by hand do we have the final 'official tally', that way we get two counts for one

Touch screens are outta here