So because you believe that the answer to his question is no (and that’s a fair opinion), that means the the thread is about perception? He asked a question about reliability. That is what the thread is about.
The problem is with electronic units that don’t involve paper ballots (which, unfortunately, I have to use). There is no way to know if they are reliably counting the votes, and no way to do verification other than printing out the totals a second time, which proves nothing.
The fact that a single individual could fraudulently sway an entire election without leaving any evidence for it does mean that the machines really are unreliable. Even if it hasn’t happened (which we can’t know), just the fact that it can happen constitutes unreliability. And the fact that one particular such individual said he was going to do it, and the results agreed with what he said he was going to do, just makes things even worse.
Do you have a cite for what that individual did? Not that I don’t believe you, I’m just not familiar with that incident.
I like the proposed system (and perhaps it has been implemented already) where the voting is done using a touchscreen with the results recorded on a paper ballot which can then be used to manually verify the vote. The voter makes her choices, clicks on the VOTE icon, and the machine prints the ballot right there for the voter to verify visually that her choices were recorded correctly. Then she takes the physical ballot and places it in the ballot box.
This seems to me to a good compromise and a rather difficult one to circumvent (assuming each voter actually reads the paper ballot to verify that the choices are correct.
Although it would be quite possible to produce printed ballots that appeared to be correct but were read in a fraudulent way.
This it would look like you voted for A) but the reader would read it as B) and it would require a hand recount to catch, assuming by a hand recount they didn’t just use masks as they often do with the scan-tron types ballots.
Not that this is not unsolvable problem too but printing them alone is not a fix.
I’d still prefer the paper ballot to be the original. Voters should be allowed to leave an identifying mark on if they choose (on top of the number that corresponds to the second part of the ballot, which must be seperated in front of the voter). The machine can read the paper ballot and record the results, and even save an image of it. If the machine is the original source of the vote, it can be hacked to print out the desired results and record a different one. There could be many ways to do this that even if detected would invalidate all ballots and all candidates in the race. An original set of paper ballots is the most difficult system to rig because of the amount of time, number of people, and special resources required to do so, and the large amount of evidence left from such a process.
Obviously it has to be done right. The paper ballots should have the candidates name on them.
What would it cost and who would be willing to pay for it? THOSE are going to be the key questions. Also, would the cost be worth it in terms of real security, and is the cost necessary to fix a real problem, or just money spent on paranoia? What is the evidence that we are talking about a serious problem here, instead of a minor one? I’ve yet to see any evidence that this is a major problem that needs vast amounts of public funding to fix. To me it looks like people who are paranoid and don’t understand the current checks and balances in the system and who THINK that elections are being stolen or heavily influenced by all this new fangled technology (while not realizing that many of their concerns also impact the older systems, and that it’s not really a major issue either way).
-XT
I must have been unclear. The printed ballot has the NAMES of the chosen candidates and offices printed out in clearly readable English (or alternate language(s)). They are used for two purposes. First, by the voter to verify that the vote was recorded correctly and second to provide a physical paper record that can be used to verify the electronic vote if a recount is required (or if fraud is alleged).
I doubt the cost of paper only balloting are as high as electronic systems. Although who knows what would happen in a future where paper becomes obsolete. But I don’t consider any methods suggested to be too high for something as important as voting. The paranoia crowd is promoting disenfranchisement and the most unreliable methods. But I think faith in the electoral process is important, and should be based on knowledge that it is being examined, verified, and not readily subject to rigging. Even if it has never resulted in the an incorrect outcome.
It’s the process that would cost the money. It’s a complex process that is going to require more oversight and probably more manually intensive oversight at that. Cost (and time of course…got to get those results out as rapidly as possible to the public who wants things done immediately if not sooner) is everything on this subject…Joe Public doesn’t want to spend a ton of money on voting, especially after spending tons already on updating their systems. At least not in my experience, especially if you can’t demonstrate conclusively that there is a real problem here that is really changing elections. Demonstrate that and you’ll have funding all over the place to fix the problems and add additional checks and balances (that already exist btw) and oversight. Unfortunately, the evidence that this IS a major problem that needs to be solved is lacking, at least I’ve seen very little hard evidence…it’s more speculation and paranoia from what I can tell, and (to my mind) it borders on a CT. And I live in a place that’s notorious for local political corruption. 
-XT
Do you have a cite to show that new systems have cost less than old paper ones?
Do you have a cite that shows the public as opposed to the news media and politicians are interested in the speed of the counting process? Or that it is significantly faster to use an electronic system?
Yes. We know.
Ever been to Vegas?
'member those bells and whistles and money dropping into the slot. Still happens, but the money is a piece of paper which is readable by another machine. Still sounds like the old Vegas don’t it.
[QUOTE=TriPolar]
Do you have a cite to show that new systems have cost less than old paper ones?
[/QUOTE]
Why would I need to produce one (leaving aside the fact that I never made this claim anyway)? They are a sunk cost…it’s ALREADY been paid where it’s been deployed. The reason they were deployed was to fix perceived problems, mostly with how quickly results could be tallied (and also to reduce the number of people needed to run and manage the system in some cases).
Here’s the thing…you and others are claiming that a new system needs to be produced and deployed to fix a perceived problem. I’m asking for some evidence that this is necessary…which is exactly what the public is going to be asking in order to justify spending more money on elections. Convince the public that there is a problem (whether there is or not) and there you go…funding galore.
I’m sure I could dig one up if I really tried. Are you seriously questioning that the public wants more rapid results to elections and that this has been a trend for decades if not longer??
As to whether an electronic machine is faster at compiling and counting/tallying votes than a manual process, well…again, I’m sure I could dig something up, but seriously? It’s like asking for a cite that water is wet. That’s what computers DO after all…they count stuff and add it up. Really fast. If you want humans to count and verify every count by hand (which seems to be what folks opposed to all this technology stuff are suggesting) then you can’t seriously think it’s going to be anywhere in the ball park, speed wise. If you simply want some sort of secondary paper ballots system that COULD be counted on the off chance you think it’s needed, then it’s probably going to be about as quick, though it’s going to cost more in terms of resources.
That my name is XT? Well, that’s good. 
-XT
I am claiming that we would be better off reverting to the old system of paper balloting using a two part form with matching serial numbers. It allows the voter to examine the process of posting a ballot, and verifying the results, and that it will not cost significantly more to do so. Physical ballot boxes are inexpensive and don’t require much maintenance, and printing forms is inexpensive as well. No special skills are required, you don’t even need electrical service. And the process of counting and verifying the results usually involves no extra cost since it’s being done by volunteers and people already employed.
Yes. I have never in my life heard anyone state that they want to see the election results come out faster if they are not in the media, or a politician, or selling something to those two.
I do not believe it will be a significantly slower process. The time it takes to count the ballots and verify them will not be much longer. Reporting unverified results, which is often done, is one of the problems. And I don’t see the addition of any resources except for the volunteers and professionals already employed on election day spending another hour at their jobs, usually only once per year.
Here: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Gi7NXwCDQxU/TMWtcQ2WWkI/AAAAAAAAElU/3GWKpIJYJ5I/s1600/006.JPG
How long do you think it will take to count (and verify) these ballots? And I think this is not an exceptionally big one. There are much bigger ballots.
You live in one of the richest democracies in the world, you can afford to count paper.
Plus, it makes you wonder how democracy developed at all given the hurdles identified in this thread …
I also have to ask what the distinction is you’re trying to make.
Do you live in a parliamentary democracy? That would explain why you say “called.” In the American system, elections aren’t called. They’re held at regularly scheduled intervals.