This builds on my previous post. I'll post these as I get them:
Here is a CNN story on the likelihood of election-day "glitches" due to unreliable voting machines. Like most coverage of this issue, it is carefully worded to characterize the problems with these machines, such as "flipping" votes to another candidate, as technical snafus and not as design features. If this were the case, the inaccuracies would be spread across the board, creating a net benefit for nobody. It would be just as likely to flip a vote from Republican to Democrat as vice-versa. Statistical analysis of previous elections shows this not to be the case.
The touch-screen systems in particular are described here as "similar to ATMs," which is a great example because I've never once had an ATM randomly "flip" my request for a withdrawal, say, into a request to purchase stamps. I can't think of one time that has ever happened.
Here is the money quote, from the closing paragraph:
So how can voters on Tuesday be absolutely sure that their ballots are being recorded with 100 percent accuracy? They can't, most election observers say.
And therein lies the power of the Bush-era voting system. It's a revolutionary concept in elections I like to call "taking their word for it."
Posted by flamingbanjo at October 30, 2008 11:44 AM