This post is mostly directed at Bricker and those who agree with him, regarding the need for stricter measures to prevent voter fraud. As I understand it from reading his posts, one of his primary concerns is that of ensuring voter confidence – that is, although there is little evidence of voter fraud in any significant quantity, we cannot prove it hasn’t been more widespread, or that it won’t become more common in future elections. Essentially, it’s a sensible preventative measure that establishes confidence that our elections aren’t being influenced by people voting unlawfully.
With that in mind, for people who agree with the above, how do you feel about voting machines (Diebold, et al.) and their inherent vulnerability to tampering? I find the two issues extremely analogous. In both cases there is an obvious threat to the integrity of the vote. In both cases there is no current hard evidence that the threat has been meaningfully realized, but it could be going on undetected, now or in the future. And in both cases, the confidence of the electorate is being undermined by the possibility and ease of fraud.
Would Dopers who are proponents of strict voter ID laws also be in favor of disallowing the use of vulnerable voting machines, until such time as neutral technically-minded observers declare them safe? I think it’s beyond question that voting machines are easy to tamper with. I’m not saying it’s definitely happened, since it’s unproven, but the machines have been found extremely suspect:
I personally find the continued use of unsecured voting machines to be much more worrying than the current alleged voter fraud, because I can more easily see them as a path to an election result that differs from the true will of the electorate. What say you?