To the Editor:

 

Your editorial today refers to paperless touch-screen voting machines as "ATM-style."  Since you like the idea of comparing our elections process to our financial system, then you should agree that we should have at least the same level of security and auditability in both. We don't only get receipts from our ATM machines when we do our banking there. (And how many of us pay attention to those?)  The proof we look for is the monthly statements from our banks. Mine includes copies of the checks I wrote and signed. Those copies would be the equivalent of a voter-verified paper ballot. My bank does that because I wouldn't and shouldn't trust their computers to do my accounting for me. By the same token, we shouldn't trust various election officials to do our voting for us. 

 

The federal government's own Governmental Accountability Office agrees with me. Their September 2005 report found "significant concerns about the security and reliability of electronic voting systems."  See other highlights of the report here: http://mysite.verizon.net/resq4lzq/cvi/id63.html 

 

Not all electronic voting machines are unacceptable. Certain optical scan machines, for instance, are HAVA-compliant and they provide a voter-verified paper ballot.  They are easy to use and familiar to all of us who have ever taken a standardized test or purchased a lottery ticket.  These machines are not perfect but they provide a voter-verified paper record of our vote, which can be used to audit election results.  They are less expensive and easier to use than touch-screen machines and they are more reliable. They aren't as flashy as "ATM-style" machines, but if I have to choose between flashy and accountable, I'll take accountable every time.

 

Robin Stelly

Lower Makefield Township