digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at rawstory.com

New House Bill Calls for Paper Ballots and an audit trail

rawstory.com — A New Jersey congressman hopes to introduce a bill in the House that would offer $600 million to voting districts across the nation that convert to paper ballots or put in audit systems in time for the November presidential election. The Confidence in Voting Act of 2008, hopes to provide a paper audit trail for 2008 US Elections.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • MadKennyP, on 01/17/2008, -2/+115Great news. And $600 million is merely 2.5 days of the cost of the Iraq war.
    • pintomp3, on 01/17/2008, -0/+8but how many libraries of congress is it?
      • Scottamus, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4I don't know but it sounds like a lot a pizzas.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1A slice of Pizza for everyone in the country to be a bit more specific.
    • tgc1, on 01/17/2008, -14/+0And America wonders why it's going broke. Hahahahaha.
      • consoneo, on 01/17/2008, -0/+11There's no wondering here, trust me.
    • lewhich, on 01/17/2008, -1/+43Diebold should pay for it
      • UtubReptilian, on 01/17/2008, -1/+9You are 100% right. The following documentary exposes the vulnerability of Diebold and other computers - which count approximately 80% of America's votes in county, state and federal elections - suggesting that if our votes aren't safe, then our democracy isn't safe either. http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hacking_Demo ...
        • Jlaugh, on 01/18/2008, -2/+2Now there's no room in an oligarchy for democracy.
    • temjrpgh, on 01/17/2008, -2/+6It's not so great news. My fear is this bill will give people a false sense of security. The Federal Gov't screws everything up it touches. I wonder what blackboxvoting has to say about this. On the surface it sounds good, but what has the government done for YOU lately? Not too much. I'd prefer to have a citizen organization that sets policy, audits, and oversees the voting process funded by personal donations and worked by volunteers. Policy would mean rules like "There MIUST be multiple convergent sources of evidence available, audited by multiple people of differing political affiliations", and "all electronic voting systems MUST be open source on an open architecture". I just don't trust the government to do right for us.
    • michaelb1, on 01/17/2008, -0/+11 I'll gladly pay $600 mil for a more secure voting system.
      Odd that it's been 8 years since the 2000 election debacle and we just get around to appropriating funds for this 10 months before the election. Give that congressman a medal.
    • principle, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1The reason we switched from paper ballots to voting machines is because of all the fraud involving the paper ballots. Votes on paper ballots, after they are cast, are even less verifiable or traceable then electronic records.
      • tgc1, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1That's why they need to have serial numbers. Hear me out. It would be so easy if, say, there was a carbon copy system in place. Not literally, but figuratively. 3 copies of each vote. You retain one copy, the other goes in the box, and the last is kept with the place you cast your vote. The only thing that ties you to it is the serial, so its still private.

        At the end of an election they'd have to post the serials with the corresponding votes so you could verify it. Just an idea i've had.
      • principle, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1We have a long sordid history of voting with paper ballots. No fraud prevention scheme has worked with paper ballots including your solution because manually sorting paper ballots (to confirm that they are all there etc.) is next to impossible.
  • MrEthiopian, on 01/17/2008, -1/+40About time, this would be a common since approach to a flawed or hackable technology that currently can't be trusted.
    • vuke69, on 01/17/2008, -3/+3There's no room for common sense in the US political system.
    • richbleak, on 01/17/2008, -1/+4Even less room for common since.
    • MeatBiProduct, on 01/17/2008, -4/+2So we should stop voting cause humans are cooruptable
  • JlmAWP, on 01/17/2008, -1/+72This is really good news, but should have been done in 2004.
    • rstarr, on 01/17/2008, -0/+492000*
      • ethanpack, on 01/17/2008, -0/+10Both*
        • Grumps, on 01/18/2008, -0/+12000 better.
          - Gore would have become president
          -- No 9/11
          -- No afghan/iraq war
          -- National debt will drop instead of getting to $9 trillion and growing
          -- Oil price wont exceed $100 per barrel
          -- US dollar wont drop record low
          -- Economy recession will be far from happening
          -- Most people's son will be alive
          -- New Orleans would have recover faster
          -- Less vetos in white house
          -- Children healthcare bill would have been approved
          -- No Guantanamo Bay torture
          -- No ***** Patriot act/terrorism act that takes away our freedom/liberty
          -- Lifetime internet neutrality
          -- No possibilities of iran war
      • pintomp3, on 01/17/2008, -0/+22we will send the governator back to 1984. hopefully he can pass a bill before diebold goes online.
        • Scottamus, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1I think the problem is we are already in 1984.
    • Firehed, on 01/17/2008, -3/+3More like 1780.
      • treed, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6A decade before we even had a president?
        • michaelb1, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3maybe thats why we didn't have a president.
      • jeffwmartin, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3We do vote on offices other than the President
    • consoneo, on 01/17/2008, -1/+6Probably before they decided to make voting electronic, they should have banned it. Electronics are a lot harder to control, since they have non-concrete data storage. I have zero confidence in those Diebold pieces of work.
      • diggrim, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1why do people fear machines. A well designed electronic system is better than a poorly designed paper system.
  • Chiefster, on 01/17/2008, -1/+18BRILLIANT!
  • RandoTheKing, on 01/17/2008, -15/+12DIGG THIS UP!
    • LightSpeed4, on 01/17/2008, -8/+1omfg CAPS LOCK!!!1111

      dugg down for being a *****
    • ninewhereman, on 01/17/2008, -1/+0Yeah Digg this up, but don't do anything useful.

      /sarcasm
    • SlimFastForYou, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1It's OK, I wanted to dig this up 10 times. Come election day 2008, I'll be pissed off if a large part of the country is still using unreliable voting procedures. I know there will be some counties here and there that don't but here's to hoping this bill passes and helps to eliminate the same kind of dubiousness that surrounded past elections. My county uses optical scan, so fortunately we have a paper trail :).
  • forgiste, on 01/17/2008, -2/+6We're gonna win this thing.
    • noahhoward, on 01/17/2008, -2/+3No, I think the damage will have already been done in the primaries.
  • Jareth86, on 01/17/2008, -8/+13The neocons will never let this happen.
    • ethanpack, on 01/17/2008, -4/+13I'm an Independent who identifies much more with the Democratic side of things, but let's not go too crazy blaming the NeoCons for everything. Seriously, some people throw around the term "NeoCon" like it's some sort of new faction in the Transformers universe.
      • rstarr, on 01/17/2008, -0/+8I smell a sequel...
      • MeatBiProduct, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6Its like the bloods and the crips accept theres a lot more jack offs in the mix.
      • Jareth86, on 01/17/2008, -2/+10Neocon refers to the new type of conservatives that seem to have emerged recently. These conservatives, rather than favoring individual liberties, leans towards government enforcement of their personal philosophies and beliefs.

        In this case, every single congressman that falls under the category of "neocon" universally voted to get diebold machines stuck in our communities. Tell me you don't smell a rat.
      • darkhand, on 01/17/2008, -3/+1Why not? They throw around 'Liberal' even when what they're slandering is conservative but contrary to what they're saying. Why can't the other end of the spectrum throw a little dirt back?

        They'll all end up dirty, but fair's fair.
      • michaelb1, on 01/17/2008, -3/+3Did you see Stewart rip apart that Neocon guy that wrote a book that calls liberal facists? It was awesome.
      • SheilaNoya, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1The Republicans have blocked evey bill that the Democrats have proposed to create a verifiable paper trail for our votes. This is NOT the first time the Democrats have tried to fix this corrupt voting system, but the Republicans never let it succeed.
  • trebuchet03, on 01/17/2008, -0/+18It's about ***** time...
  • soot, on 01/17/2008, -1/+3Makes sense to me.
  • hamhat, on 01/17/2008, -0/+26everyone could bring a pencil (or crayon, or sharpie) and a piece of paper and then vote.

    this is not rocket science.

    how poor does the middle class have to get before they seriously get pissed off? I thought the middle class in America was where you could work a job and buy a house. what in the *****?
    • MeatBiProduct, on 01/17/2008, -4/+3lol you bought the american dream eh? work harder - don't be middle class - thats a cop out and doesn't even exist. You're either rich poor or about to be poor - so get your ass off digg, get an education, stop drinking beer and do something with your life. Don't blame everyone else cause you failed to rise above the butt crust of the united states.

      The middle class can get as pissed as it wants but since it never sought higher education its going to have an uphill battle to get 'what they deserve'.
      • DreKor, on 01/17/2008, -1/+8I'm pretty sure the middle class, for the most part, has sought and received higher education. Unfortunately, that education doesn't always count for a lot. With a 4-year degree you should be able to land something better than $9.50/hour.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1There's always free lunch at Google.
      • michaelb1, on 01/17/2008, -2/+6Your right, he is wrong. The middle class IS the educated class. It's the backbone of a democracy. When it dies, democracy dies.
        Edwards is the only one overtly making a big fuss about demise of the middle class. Obama seems to get it though. I think he understands better then Edwards. Obama is pretty much middle class. He's barely a millionaire and he came on his fortunes later in life. I believe he is the poorest guy in the race.
        • stealthc, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Yeah, except class warfare rhetoric only exacerbates the problem. Rich people are not your enemy. Spend a week selling $2,000 vacuums and you'll understand. The real enemy is the government, which, for political reasons, will arbitrarily insulate some people (wealthy investors, lending institutions) from the consequences of malinvestment at the expense of the rest of us. This protection of favored groups from the consequences of their actions is the single source of America's growing disparities, as well as every bubble since 1913. A relatively classless society with very few poor is possible, but only with a free market.

          Abolish the Fed.
    • androo, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6"this is not rocket science."

      funny you should say that because Rush Holt's bumper stickers read "My congressman IS a rocket scientist"
  • seraphisset, on 01/17/2008, -0/+5Makes sense!
  • Syko360, on 01/17/2008, -6/+13Computers are the future of voting. With the electronic voting system in place you don't even need a brother that is a Governor to steal an election.
  • PropCulture, on 01/17/2008, -0/+10If you do not agree with this bill, please explain why. PLEASE.
    • joeisanemokid, on 01/17/2008, -6/+4simply put, if you don't concur with this bill, your don't concur with democracy either. Therefore, you are a proponent of this country becoming more of a dictatorship than it already is, and therefore a republican.
      • Firehed, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Ah, yes, the old "if you've got nothing to hide, then why do you care about us spying on you?" argument.

        I can't think of a valid complaint against the bill, but that argument is nonsense.

        (oblig: RP is a Republican! logic: political party doesn't mean a ***** thing anymore, and is just another nonsense term to polarize and divide the nation)
        • michaelb1, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4I think party does mean something considering most of the laws passed in the last 8 years were voted on almost perfectly along party lines.
          Lets not forget Bush Vs. Gore in 2000 when the supreme court voted exactly along party lines.
          • Jlaugh, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1So when the both voted to "support" the troops who's party line where they voting?
    • MeatBiProduct, on 01/17/2008, -5/+3I don't support it because I think its a step backwards. I see no security in letting humans or a computers handle a task. What makes the people counting the ballets anymore secure than a computer system counting them? What keeps those people honest?

      Have you ever gotten incorrect change when paying for something? Have you ever been in a car accident? Have you ever made a mistake?

      Humans are prone to error - even higher than a computer system. I think moving to paper ballots will land us right back into a 'Florida' election. Meaning we will be recounting recounts anytime someones candidate crys about their votes.

      The people most affected by this haven't even made statements about it. The people least affected have. Whats that tell you! It says ***** about democracy to me and aches of people crying over spilled milk.

      Until there is proof as in fact and not proof as in conspiracy of fraud happening then I might change my stance. Until then we have 1 or 2 scenarios of machines ***** up because of operator maintenance (as in loosing votes cause they exceed the storage capacity of the equipment) or a bug where 1 machine tallied incorrectly.

      However I can recall even more stories of finding ballot boxes sitting in parking lots and other 'strange areas'. To my knowledge computer systems don't leave ballot boxes in parking lots - humans do.
      • darkhand, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6Because you have multiple humans, each with a desire for fairness, overseeing the process. There will be multiple people counting the vote... People who are completely impartial, people who want one candidate to win, people who want another to win. If someone tries to sway things, one of the others is going to call them on it.
        • joshuabowers, on 01/18/2008, -0/+4Then make the whole thing open source; I don't just mean the software, either: I mean everything from the hardware the counting applications are on and up.
      • d03boy, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2People write the programs and people are evil.
  • tmonax, on 01/17/2008, -0/+7How can we actually help this happen? Should we write our senators, contact our representatives? The article didnt even mention the name of the bill or the sponsor... Lets make this actually happen!
    • neodem, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2um.. Reading is fundimental dude : The bill, dubbed The Confidence in Voting Act of 2008...New Jersey Rep. Rush Holt, who has sponsored the bill in the House.

      And yes.. call your US rep today!

  • Zarxrax, on 01/17/2008, -0/+29WHY DOES IT COST MONEY TO CONVERT TO PAPER BALLOTS???
    • AndrewDB, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Printing costs.
      • michaelb1, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4Who cares. $600 mil is a bargain for this.
    • fireburner23, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Excellent question.... don't most countries around the world just use a simple paper ballot and put it in a box?
    • koicho, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2changes always cost money. because there is so much money taken from the people through taxation that someone has to spend it. and someone has to profit from it. and remember there are always two reasons to pass a bill - one that makes sense and appeals to the public and one that makes someone in the back rich.
      • rationalist, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1I'd love to hear your constructive alternative to representative democracy. You and all the other whiners and complainers who bitch about taxes and responsibilities while enjoying all the benefits and advantages of belonging to a free society.
        Oh, I forgot - those who gripe loudest about "them, the government" don't give a ***** about "we, the people" only "my, the pocketbook".
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Insightful.

        Some Bills are passed to protect public interest, like banning smoking in public areas. And others are passed because of corporate lobbies. Like Dick Cheney's environmental policy.
    • greenlight2001, on 01/17/2008, -0/+7Paying the people to count them. Security during the lengthy count. Printing costs. Transportation of thousands of ballots. Etc etc etc... cost money my friend.
    • MeatBiProduct, on 01/17/2008, -2/+1and these are the people supporting this move. you don't even understand its repercussions but you scream for it to happen.
    • HappyScrappy, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Diebold.

      Remember, the whole reason to go TO electronic was to sell new voting machines and put money in Diebold's pocket. So of course to switch back will cost money too. You must fee the beast.
    • warrenterr, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1well, who's gonna be counting the ballots?
  • serif69, on 01/17/2008, -7/+2How ironic that Mr. Holt should introduce this bill. He has built his political career on shady surprise victories by the narrowest of margins. His last election went to a recount after beating his opponent by 481 votes out of nearly 300,000 cast.
    • soot, on 01/17/2008, -1/+7So.. you're implying he has a hidden agenda by trying to bring transparency to the election process?
    • MeatBiProduct, on 01/17/2008, -4/+3how does this bring transparency? it doesn't.

      i hope this bill passes and then someone DOES rigg things just to prove that humans are as easily 'hacked' as computers are. You can hack a human with a signed check.
      • d03boy, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3But humans are liable to tell whereas computers can immediately forget things.
        • Jlaugh, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1But when those humans tell people ignore them. So why would they tell?
    • Metasquares, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Out of all politicians, I consider Holt among those with the most integrity. It is true that he won the 2000 election (which was not the last one; his last victory was in 2006) by 481 votes, but it was his opponent who challenged the results and the court ultimately upheld his victory.
      Perhaps he wants to avoid such things happening again, since this is the second time he's proposed this bill.
  • nbrntrt, on 01/17/2008, -1/+6How are the neocons suppose to steal an elections with this much of an audit trail? My guess is they will figure out how to make sure it doesn't happen for this election. It really is a shame too.
  • TomT223, on 01/17/2008, -7/+0I smell a hanging chad.
  • thestaton, on 01/17/2008, -0/+37I would love for the machine to print out who I voted for with a authentication number. You go home, insert the authentication number and online you can see who you voted for again, and compare your results with others.

    ***** Diebold.
    • fireburner23, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2Your suggestion is a much better idea than going back to the simple punch hole ballets...anybody disagree?
      • JeffD, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Punch hole? Whats wrong with you guys use a pencil and mark an X inside the box.
    • TwinTurboMike, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4And who controls that authentication website? Diebold? Same problem. It'd be simple to write a program that simply replied, "Yep, your vote has been counted" when it really hasn't. If an invalid number is entered, the program would acknowledge that as well.
      • elcamino, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4you would have to make the entire vote database available online, with each reference number (see fireburner23's comment) and who they voted for. That way anyone could verify that their vote was counted, and anyone could verify the actual result of the election.
        • coryking, on 01/17/2008, -0/+8Sure, and then you can go online with your boss behind you to check that you voted for the "right" canidate or get fired?

          Anonymous voting is a cornerstone of our voting system. The minute you make it possible to trace a vote back to an individual, things become very prone to corruption.
      • Firehed, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4Well theory being, it would verify who you had voted for, and thus somewhere there's a legitimate DB of what happened. Of course, it would be trivial to then obfuscate the results after the initial lookup under the assumption that nobody is going to go back and re-verify. It also brings the problem of people being forced to vote one way (illegal, but it happens) since there would be a trail brought home with you that your boss/spouse/evil person could use to know you voted whichever way you were told to do so.
        • coryking, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Your scenario is a way more likely way to manipulate votes too. Look at how developing nations who do not enforce anonymous voting handle elections. You either vote for "guy with the gun holding the election box" or "the canidate I want, and get shot".
      • michaelb1, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Google of course.
    • bearsandbulls, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2A simple common sense approach. I don't think many ex-lawyers will approve.
    • Spoomeister, on 01/17/2008, -0/+5I'm sure you'd love to go back online and confirm who you voted for.
      So would AT&T, random hackers, and everyone else in between your computer and that "authentication number" site.
    • manixrock, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4You're not the first to have thought about this. The main problem is voting has to be a workable mix between anonymity of vote and reliability of the vote count. Both are essential. Anonymity is especially essential in states where the controlling government is actively persecuting those who during the elections vote against them. The vote count is the problem right now.
      "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Stalin

      Sacrificing one for the other is not a solution. Any link between the voter and the vote (like an authentication's number) can be used to trace how he voted and be persecuted for it, unless the number is generated randomly and remembered by the voter at the time of the vote (so only he knows it). This preserves anonymity as he could go to any computer in the world and anonymously access the database to verify the vote, however creates a problem of reliability since human memory is fallible and proving reliably that your vote has been changed is next to impossible (You would have to prove conclusively that you remember both your vote and the number exactly).
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2What I think we should do is have electronic voting systems but the source code is checked by appointed programmers from all major parties involved and the results of each individual vote is not only printed as a receipt but each vote should be sent to every candidate's offices as well as the precinct voting staff instantly. This will ensure 100% objectivity and there will be a paper trail to prove everything.
  • Zlorp, on 01/17/2008, -1/+6hope this passes, the electronic machines sure to seem fishy.
  • alkajazz, on 01/17/2008, -2/+1We made it!
  • cigawoot, on 01/17/2008, -3/+9Elections are not the place to save paper. You need to have a traceable system that can be double or triple verified for accuracy. Computers are not reliable enough to handle the most important task in the United States. I like how Iowa does their voting, its a straight forward optical scan form that can be double checked later by hand if necessary. The Diebold voting machines currently in place in many states do not have paper trails, which can lead to tampering and screwing of election results.
    • MeatBiProduct, on 01/17/2008, -1/+6Computers run the entire financial system of the world. If that system failed voting would be pointless. Sorry but voting isn't the most important task in the united states, maybe to some citizens - but stability of the system itself falls on computer systems and you trust them everyday with your fiscal life.
      • jessehadden, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Financial computer systems require an audit trail. A human being counts every piece of currency that passes through a bank at least twice, and keeps very meticulous records with checks & double-checks. A bank with no confidence in its record keeping is a bank with no customers. How long would a bank be in business if it used Diebold voting machines as the benchmark of what can be done?

        Obviously, the bank would opt for better, more reliable machines, with human-readable audit trails, built by people who know better. The bank would purchase a system from people experienced in designing systems where human auditing is the norm, not an exception. People like Diebold. In other words, Diebold knows what to do and how to do it. So why don't they?
        • joshuabowers, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Speaking as a developer, it either did not occur to the Diebold development team, or it was not in the original spec for the machines.
    • davewashere, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Computers are relatively reliable. Humans controlling those computers are not.
      • stoanhart, on 01/18/2008, -0/+3Or in particular, humans paid large sums of money to tell those machines what to say behind closed doors - instructions that can't be seen by anyone - are unreliable.
  • toasty168, on 01/17/2008, -0/+12oh please make this happen and give me an inkling of hope that america isn't headed for the *****
  • Shmigget, on 01/17/2008, -0/+8Every other system in the world has an audit trail except for many electronic voting machines. This is long overdue.
  • radink360, on 01/17/2008, -2/+5Needs to be done. Wonder if it will pass. If bush vetoes it, I think we can then all assume that he won by rigging his elections.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1I think we can assume that anyway.
    • Izult, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1I think he'd pass it. He got his presidency after all.
  • yournamehere, on 01/17/2008, -4/+1to late to stop jeb
  • AtHomeBoy2000, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Thank you for standing up for democracy.
  • arbouler, on 01/17/2008, -1/+12Diebold DIE!
  • omnithought, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4That we didn't have tis in place as soon as voting machines were put into use is just ridiculous. That we let that happen is unconscionable.
  • martinherrera, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2finally a step in the right direction for voters
  • DemsFTW, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2the voting machines should give receipts to citizens after they submit their votes into the machine. These receipts should have unique numbers placed on them so that citizens can check who/what they voted for online. To ensure that the number of people that voted is correct, check the sign in book. At the end of the day, when the machine is tallying up the votes, it should kick out the total number of votes. If that total doesn't compare to the book, then you need to check the real ballots.
    • JeffD, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Or just mark an x on a piece of paper and dont buy expensive voting machines.
    • Terr01, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Not OK. We need to maintain anonymity of the ballot AND prevent people 'selling' their votes.

      The easiest solution I've heard of involves a clear chute between the machine and the ballot box. The person SEES the paper ballot printed by the machine, and must pull a lever to drop it into the box. If the ballot is not what they chose on-screen, they can go get an election worker, but they cannot take the paper with them or make a copy.
  • Elissar, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Finally, maybe they can actually get something useful done.
  • MeatBiProduct, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2humans aren't hackable - lets use them!
  • kahrytan, on 01/17/2008, -2/+1It's far better to switch to digital ballots with paper bar coded print outs.
  • joncarr, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Optical scan is the ONLY way to go. It's fast, and yet leaves the original ballot, marked in the voter's own hand, for later review if needed.
  • MeatBiProduct, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1love how this article included a free advertisement in its image.
  • jessehadden, on 01/17/2008, -1/+3FTA: "There are no documented cases of election tampering involving electronic voting machines across the United States." *****.
  • Snakedal337, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Great idea, but I have this real funny feeling in the back of my mind this will never go through the houses. Id be great if it does those, then we can find out who Bush is really for when he signs his name or throws down a veto.
    • Izult, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1my question is will it go through in time? It might get held up in committee or some equally lame excuse
  • BufordT, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1It costs $600 million to revert back to a paper trail. That is where we started, why does it cost that much to go back to square one? I totally agree with the idea, but the price tag seems a bit high.
    • Izult, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1They're spending how much on the war in Iraq and you're not liking the idea of spending a measly $600?
  • Tantrum, on 01/17/2008, -2/+1I've said it before and i'll say it again, demand a paper ballot to vote on this November or walk out without voting. At least by not voting, you know your vote isn't being compromised and potentially going towards the pre-chosen winner via hacked electronic ballot boxes. It's paper or nothing.
    • jsuther, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4Unfortunately boycotting voting does seem to work too well in recent history. Two voting boycotts come to mind, the Sunni's in Iraq forming the Iraqi congress and the moderates in Iran a few years back. Both boycotting parties seem to have been left out in the cold afterwards.
  • CraigJ, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Yes please. I love technology, but the government has no clue how to implement it. Furthermore, the polling place should validate your ballot for you before you leave the polling place. ThHe technology for this is used in schools everyday. It's called a scantron.

    Did I just dig up a Rawstory article? Yes I did.
    • whatairver, on 03/09/2008, -0/+0If airline ticket machines can give you an immediate paper boarding pass when you buy a ticket at the airport, then it should be just as easy to get a paper receipt as soon as you vote with a running total like Digg does printed on your receipt.
  • aelias, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2We didn't have an audit friendly system until now? Makes me glad I haven't voted yet.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Are you a Black Florida voter with a similar spelled name as a Texas inmate?

      Well even if you aren't chances are you'll be arrested for loitering while lining up to vote.
  • Lazybones, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4So they are requiring as system like the ones we have used here in Canada for years.

    Paper ballot. you make your mark with a pencil, they scan your ballot and store the original. Computer makes the standard count fast and the paper is all there for a recount.
  • Metasquares, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Holt is one of the few politicians I respect. Unfortunately, he's one district away from my own.
  • UtubReptilian, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3The following documentary exposes the vulnerability of computers - which count approximately 80% of America's votes in county, state and federal elections - suggesting that if our votes aren't safe, then our democracy isn't safe either. http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hacking_Demo ...
  • chimein, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1(call your congressman & senator, and lets make this legislation happen!)

    Mitch McConnell,

    Electronic voting with no paper trail is unacceptable, and I demand paper trails, and/or paper ballots immediately. Anything less is either naive or criminal. The inability to recount is unacceptable.

    Waiting your reply.
  • Dorian822, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Thanks once again, New Jersey. hehe
  • MadN, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1I smell a veto, if this gets that far.
  • SheilaNoya, on 01/18/2008, -1/+2The Democrats have already tried to submit similar bills several times to create a verifiable paper trail for our votes, including an independent audit & review process. The Republicans have blocked it every time. I wish the Democrats good luck with this, but the Republicans are dead set on NOT letting us have a trustworthy voting process.
    • facewarts, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2Hmmmm ... no ID to vote is trustworthy ? Your full of BS !!!
      • p0s3r, on 01/18/2008, -1/+3The Democratics want all their illegal votes to count.
    • appleann1, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2Are you all right?
      What party gets their voter list from obituary's?
      Who's hot for illegals?
      Who wants Felons to vote?
      Who set up "motor Voter"?
      What party did not want to count the military vote in 2000?
      What party did ACORN (caught forging signatures in 06, and many previous yrs)

      The answer to above....DEMOCRATS.
  • birddog981, on 01/18/2008, -0/+0...and they just realized they needed this now!?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.