The failed resolution, proposed by Ronald Rivest, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer scientist and panel member, closely mirrored a report released last week warning that paperless electronic voting machines are vulnerable to errors and fraud and cannot be made secure.BaB's Jill (who gets the hat tip), retorts: "And....what's your point, Mr. Williams? The 'entire voting system hardware', as you call it, doesn't work, and doesn't accurately count the votes. As an American, I don't give a shit about overwhelming state election boards. I have a right for my vote to be counted the way I cast it which outweighs the right of state election boards to have an easy time of it."
Some panel members who voted against the proposal said they support paper records but don't think the risk of widespread voting machine meltdowns is great enough to rush the requirement into place and overwhelm state election boards.
"They should be longer-range goals," said Britain Williams of the National Association of Election Directors. "You are talking about basically a reinstallation of the entire voting system hardware."
Seconded. And I'm not sure how two years isn't enough for each individual election director to sort out his or her piece of this admittedly large puzzle. At some point, someone's just going to have to make a damn decision to get this done once and for all so we can all trust in the integrity of our elections again. It's always going to be a pain in the ass, and delaying it isn't going to lessen the posterior agony. Enough excuses. Just get it done.
(PEEK-ed.)
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus