A bit more on electronic voting machines (EVTs):
The site Counted as Cast is a good resource for information about what systems are out there, where they are used, and what sort of issues there are with EVTs. What is interesting to me is that the primary arguments for EVTs (accessibility and cost saving) are fairly weak.
For your information and entertainment, here is a graphic from the Washington post entitled “How to steal an election”:
It’s easier to rig an electronic voting machine than a Las Vegas slot machine, says University of Pennsylvania visiting professor Steve Freeman. That’s because Vegas slots are better monitored and regulated than America’s voting machines, Freeman writes in a book out in July that argues, among other things, that President Bush may owe his 2004 win to an unfair vote count. We’ll wait to read his book before making a judgment about that. But Freeman has assembled comparisons that suggest Americans protect their vices more than they guard their rights, according to data he presented at an October meeting of the American Statistical Association in Philadelphia.
Not really surprising. Where is the economic motivation in keeping voting machines secure? Seems as though any side would prefer to be able to hack them to that side’s advantage.
Btw, Slate has a new article on problems with trying to fix the Electoral College:
I’d be interested to get your take on it. Cheers.