Share

House Defeats Paper Ballot Funding

by: Michael Hardy  |  Federal Computer Week

photo
(Photo: AP)

    The House rejected a bill last week that would have funded the purchase of paper ballots as a backup to electronic voting systems for the upcoming election.

    The bill would have directed the Election Assistance Commission to establish a program to make the grants in time for the November vote.

    Aviel Rubin, a professor of computer science at the University of Maryland and longtime skeptic of electronic voting, said he was disappointed by the House.

    "It's a real missed opportunity," he said. "I just hope we won't be sorry in November."

    Electronic voting machines - essentially specialized computers that display ballots and record and tabulate votes - have been controversial since they began to come into wide use following the passage of the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

    Proponents say the machines are fast, accurate, and easy to set up for disabled and non-English speaking voters. Critics, however, say the machines can be inaccurate and are subject to technical problems. Touch-screen machines in particular have caused concern because some models do not provide a paper record of votes that could be used if a manual recount is required.

    The bill would have provided state and local election jurisdictions with the money they would need to buy paper ballots as a failsafe measure.

    John Gideon, co-executive director of VotersUnite.org, said e-voting skeptics should stop trying to get federal legislation passed.

    "It is just not going to happen," he said. "Not only do the Republicans not want it, but the House and Senate leadership does not seem to be on our side." Instead, he said, opponents should look to state legislatures and election authorities for help. "The state strategy has already worked in many states," he said.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Who is to sat that the

Who is to sat that the results printed on a piece of paper will be the same as what are tabulated? The printer portion can be hacked just as easily as the machine itself. Those receipts can't be used later to re-tabulate the votes so what good are they except to either verify the voter's intent or further convince the voter that the vote they cast was what they intended. If a paper readout is desired, have it tally all of the votes cast in that machine so that the tally list can be recounted. It won't matter though. The machine can be "rigged" to falsify this printout also. Oregon votes by mail but still requires machines to read them. They however are less likely to be messed with since they stay in their respective county's possession. The problem is, with electronic voting machines involved, we may NEVER know if the tally is truly what the voters intended. I believe Sequoia machines are owned by Venezuela. I thought that they bought the company so that Hugo Chavez could "rig" the votes in his favor to allow him to continue to run for re-election indefinitely. It could be that these machines might be more "honest" than I thought because he lost. Whether he did not use these machines or they just weren't ready to be fully reprogrammable prior to the election I can't say. Maybe he plans on reserving the reprogramming for this next U.S. election. No matter what I have said up to this point, I do not trust electronic voting machines. Actually, I do not trust those that may have the capability and the guts to "tweak" them for their own ends. These machines can hide their tracks.

I am surprised that the

I am surprised that the House does not support fair elections either.

We should just use paper

We should just use paper ballots, exclusively. Less expensive, less susceptible to manipulation, more verifiable, etc., etc. Canada does.

The only guaranteed secure

The only guaranteed secure vote is one cast on a paper ballot and counted by hand. It's that simple.It is also cheaper than e-voting. It might take a little more time to count the votes but there is enough concern about election integrity to get volunteers to give a few hours to make sure the votes are counted.It should be a bi-partisan effort with an independent party offering further over-sight. Its ironic that our country has been fighting to bring democracy to another country while we have been losing our own.

I'm surprised that the

I'm surprised that the democratic majority wouldn't back this bill. Perhaps there's more to the story than we are privy to. In the light of the last two stolen elections, one would think the Democrats would do more to have accountability in voting.

Thank you Congress for

Thank you Congress for protecting us from democracy and fair elections.

A paper trail should include

A paper trail should include a copy for the voter, and a copy she can place in the box for use in the event of needing a re-c0unt. Otherwise, it should be paper ballots. And the issue of exit polls needs to be readdressed. They are the best method of identifying the winning candidate(s) prior to the official count, which should take a few days. The Regressives have taken to dissing exit polls as flawed. We need to turn back this fraud.

The Democrats don't want to

The Democrats don't want to impeach. They voted overwhelmingly to give immunity to the telecomm companies. And now they don't want a paper audit trail on the voting machines. Just whose side are they on?

we are under the false

we are under the false impression that there are really two parties. The Blue Dog "Democrats" are really Republicans in disguise. If they steal another election and McCain gets in we will surely be doomed. There are too many forces that are out to destroy our constitution and Democracy. They won't be happy until they have sucked us dry, leaving only a hollowed out nation that once was

Anonymous wrote: "I'm

Anonymous wrote: "I'm surprised that the democratic majority wouldn't back this bill. Perhaps there's more to the story than we are privy to. In the light of the last two stolen elections, one would think the Democrats would do more to have accountability in voting." If you'll look at the recorded vote, you'll see that all Democrats voted for the bill. All the "nay" votes were cast by the Republicans. It's pretty telling that the Republicans don't want to support fair elections. Click here to see the roll call vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll493.xml