Are electronic voting machines better or worse than paper ballots?
- TAGS:ballot, electronic, machines, vote
- IT TOPICS:Government & Regulation
I think it’s a shame that a couple of states are finding it necessary to take steps backwards when it comes to recording American voter ballots. I just read in the Washington post that Maryland and Virginia will be returning to the old-fashioned paper ballot – not until after Tuesday, however. The reason they cite for ditching the electronic voting machines is the concern that the systems could be hacked into or that they could crash. Also, some machines don’t provide a "receipt" after a completed vote; that means a voter could not confirm that his/her vote was recorded correctly. Maryland won’t be done paying for their $65 electronic voting machine system until 2014, which is unfortunate as they’re planning to revert to paper ballots by 2010. (Hmm, continuing to pay for something no longer worth what it once was…sounds familiar.)
If paper ballots will ensure that votes are made securely, then there’s good reason to switch back. But wasn’t the initial change to electronic voting systems made because of their more secure (supposedly) features? Hanging chads, hacking potential, lost or stolen paper ballots; there are valid reasons both for and against each type of voting system. There are other options the U.S. hasn’t tried yet. Maybe we should try indelible ink on voters’ fingers….
Free Insider Guide