"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>
> At 09:51 PM 11/5/2002 -0500 Joe Hale wrote:
> >Here in Georgia, the voting was completely automated. I'll admit I felt
> >a little uneasy with no visible ballot. The touch screen voting
> >machines installed over the last two years lack the advantage of
> >transparency. How do I know that in the thousands of lines of
> >programming code someone didn't slip in a line of code that subtly skews
> >the results? I don't mean to sound paranoid and I'm not a Ludite. But
> >even though computers have lots of advantages, their functioning is not
> >transparent to the ordinary citizen.
>
> I personally argue that all computer-based terminals should provide the
> voter with a print-out of the voter's selections. The paper print-outs
> would then also be collected, and used as a fail-safe in case of computer
> failure or in case of a recount, or in case of allegations of fraud.
I like that idea. And since it's just a fail-safe backup sort of thing
and if it gets down to that, they'll probably *want* to have people
looking at them, you could probably make it out of thinner paper than
they print the scantron-type forms on, and it wouldn't need to be as
large.
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
