Rutgers, et al.: Security flaws could taint 2012 election

From Countingvotes, reporting on a Rutgers study:

[Emphasis mine; footnotes removed]

The report ranks states from worst to best in the following five areas:

[li]Does the state require paper ballots or records of every state?[/li][li]Does the state have adequate contingency plans at each polling place in the event of machine failure?[/li][li]Does the state protect military and overseas voters by ensuring that marked ballots are not cast online?[/li][li]Has the state instituted a post-election audit that can determine whether the electronically reported outcomes are correct?[/li][li]Does the state use robust ballot reconciliation and tabulation practices?[/li][/ol]

An extract of the findings:

Arkansas    Maryland
Colorado    Mississippi
Delaware    New Jersey
Georgia     Pennsylvania
Indiana     South Carolina
Kansas      Tennessee
Kentucky    Texas
Louisiana   Virginia

These states use machines that don’t produce a separate record that could be used to determine the voter’s intent, which is necessary for recounts.

Are any of these “swing states”? How much of a problem could this be?

Pennsylvania, Virginia and Colorado have been on pretty much every list of swing states I’ve seen recently.

Isn’t it funny in all the recent push to verify proper voter legitimacy, we have a bunch of states where the only recourse in the event of a recount is to, essentially, run the computerized counting program again? Because there’s no “paper trail” to verify the system recorded the original vote correctly.

Its particularly damning that Tennessee (where I live) went out of its way to pass a “voter ID” law this year to make sure [del]poor people[/del] [del]immigrants[/del] ineligible voters can’t cast ballots, but yet isn’t worried about possible fraud due to the lack of a paper trail for the electronic voting machines.