I propose we vote on machines that record electronically our ballot put produce a paper. Agree or disagree-why

Question

I propose that every vote for President is put into a machine that records the vote electronically. There would be a paper output that the voter would then have and after the voter approves the vote would drop a paper copy into a "box".

At the end of the day the precinct workers would have the electronic talley and be able to count the paper ballots to verify.

So in a 1000 person precinct where 505 people voted for Rudy and 495 people vote for Hillary, the paper would be divided in to two piles and the Rudy pile would be verified by the precinct workers.

The electronic vote could be transmitted to a state office, and the precinct could call in the verified total for a match.

We'd know who won the Presidency by 10pm Pacific time day of election.

Answer 1

That is a very interesting idea. Votes would be recorded in 2 ways, and completely verifiable. I would be even happier if it would print out a receipt for the voter. That way if anyone claimed their vote didn't count, it could be verified.

Answer 2

Why the rush to know the result so quickly? A lot of the problems in recent years with disputed US elections has been due to quick technological machines (punch cards, Diebold machines etc) that seem ultimately to produce less trustworthy results.

In the UK, everyone still uses ballot papers. You mark an X in the box next to the candidate you want to vote for. You fold it up and put them into a sealed see through ballot box (so no-one can stuff it first). The box is transported, still sealed, to a central counting where it is hand counted. All the candidates and their representatives can be at the count and can at any time demand votes or a section thereof are re-counted.

It takes a lot longer for the results to come out BUT I can't think of an occasion where there has ever been a case where the voting public has been unsure about the accuracy of the results.

Answer 3

I think the voting machines are a bad idea in general, but since they are already in use the least they can do is provide reciept style print outs that the voter can verify and that can then be counted to verify the votes in general. The things are still just way to easy to hack.

Answer 4

I in no way crammed out a paper pollin my life. I desire the previous mechanical vote casting machines I voted on for 3 many years to the hot digital machines that are a pair of billion situations greater convenient to rig.

Answer 5

Your system is no less fallible than pen and paper ballots. Well, maybe slightly less fallible (fewer counting errors, assuming they try to count them correctly).

Let's rewind to 2004, you're standing in front of your machine and you press the 'Kerry' button. A receipt comes out, showing you voted for Kerry. But the machine counted it for Bush. How can you verify the machine hasn't been compromised to cheat? You can't.

Answer 6

That's a great theory, but many small towns don't have the money to purchase the electronic equipment necessary for this.

Answer 7

That's a good idea but would cost a lot to implement. But it would be nice to not have to wait so long, onlly to find out a recount needs to be done.

Answer 8

an excellent idea, that's also so very simple. if we can think of it, then you know that those that have the power to affect the process and rules regarding elections have also thought of it.

the question remains; why would they NOT want to simplify and streamline elections, so as to make them more tamper proof?

Answer 9

Of course its a great idea, but if you leave a verfiable paper trail, how will Republicans steal elections?

Answer 10

that would have been wonderful in the last election. We would have had a different president.