Yay! The NYT, famous for incomplete and lackluster coverage of the national disaster of electronic voting, has published the story they should have published six years ago. Kudos to them. It's 8,000 words long and if you are new to the issue, I recommend that you read it. If, when you are finished, you are depressed and/or confused, I will give you the antidote now: All the problems mentioned in the story can be solved with voter-marked paper ballots and proper audits. Municipalities should feel free to waste millions of taxpayer dollars on any fancy schmancy ballot counting devices they want as long as those results are used for preliminary, always unofficial results and the official results wait for the hand count of the voter-marked paper ballots. Precinct-based op-scans are a good way to go.
Systems that fit that bill can be in place in time for 2008. This issue is not difficult and that's good news.
How about that. And it only took them 7 yrs to get onto this story. Do you think the fact that this election is more likely to be stolen by the Dem than the Pub has anything to do with their sudden interest in electronic voting theft? Nah. That would be cynical of me.
Posted by: mick arran | January 10, 2008 at 04:44 PM
Mick! How are you?
As to your comment: I think the NYT sucks!! More importantly, nobody is getting that my "kudos to them" is sarcastic :(
Posted by: eRobin | January 10, 2008 at 06:43 PM
I'm fine. So far....
I thought it was very big of them to notice. Why not a kudo or 2? Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Posted by: mick arran | January 11, 2008 at 11:51 AM