The Diebold Variations, or fun with those who hide.
What’s wrong with paperless voting machines? Let me count the concerns…
- Too easy to control the vote counts. With paper you have the intent of the voter on hand, a vote in the computer can be moved around without any one the wiser.
- No paper means no backup. Also, no way to insure how you voted.
- The touch screens can be used to identify voters. It’s actually quite simple:
- have a database of all registered voters in a precinct with their fingerprints.
- Make sure the touchscreen is able to read fingerprints. (They can detect touch, I’m sure it’s just a matter of computer power to include the reading of fingerprints).
- Set up the program so that votes for certain candidates (or parties) get the fingerprints read.
- Match the finger print to the database.
- Persecute to Taste (or insure good fortune, if that person voted your way)
- No ability to vote for write-ins. What’s a democracy if a well-meaning independent can’t do a grassroots campaign and get write-ins? These electronic machines are set up so write-ins can’t happen.
Yes, there’s way for people to figure out who voted for whom, to cancel out write-ins, to mess with vote counts and fool people into making their vote not count. But the electronic voting stuff makes all the above things SO much easier; simply put in the right programs and they’ll do your dirty work for you. No need for goons or people in your pocket to work at messing up the ballots; just a few programmers to fiddle with the results.