Scientists, Democrats distrust new electronic voting machines
By Scott Shepard, Sunday, December 7, 2003, Austin American-Statesman Washington BureauWASHINGTON -- Computer voting machines have been touted as a solution to the problems of the 2000 presidential election, but some election officials and computer scientists are concerned that the machines, especially those with touch screens, might be inaccurate and, worse, susceptible to sabotage.
Great that the Statesman has the story. The only local folks they quoted were at Hart Intercivic.
Posted by alevin at December 7, 2003 11:42 PM | TrackBackPlaywright Tom Stoppard once said, "It's not the voting that's democracy; it's the counting." That has never been more true than it is today.
For more: http://www.edthibodeau.com/nonplussed/2003/12/its_not_the_vot.html
I used the Hart InterCivic system as an election judge in the September constitutional amendment election. Based on that, I agree that their system would be a lot harder to break than the Diebold system appears to be. For one thing, Hart's system has less connection to the outside than other systems have (in many situations, none at all), and what ain't connected to the Net, you can't crack without a LOT of work.
Posted by: Sam on December 8, 2003 07:10 PM