September 18, 2007
Campaigning for and Against a Paper Trail
Legislation pending in the House of Representatives that would require a paper record of each vote cast in every election is being promoted by computer-security researchers, including Edward W. Felten, of Princeton University.
But at a news conference today in Washington, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation urged the public to oppose the bill (H.R. 811), called the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act. It stalled in the House this month over concerns raised by groups representing the disabled and state and local governments.
“We support verifiable audit trails, but we disagree that paper is the best solution or should be mandated to the exclusion of other technology,” the foundation says in a report released at the event. Rep. Vernon Ehlers, a Michigan Republican, supports the foundation’s efforts and was scheduled to appear at the event to promote his own legislation (H.R. 2360), the Voting Enhancement and Security Act of 2007. But he failed to show up.
The foundation argues that the integrity of elections can be maintained using only electronic ballots. Paper ballots can be modified, spoiled, stolen, and stuffed into ballot boxes, it notes. Those views are shared by at least one academic, Merle S. King, chairman of the computer-science department at Kennesaw State University. —-Andrea L. Foster
Posted on Tuesday September 18, 2007 | Permalink |Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Students Fret Over Facebook's Public Listings
Next: 'A River of Alligators'
No paper copy, no vote. Do not accept electronic only verification. Our country’s survival hangs in the balance.
— marci Sep 18, 02:30 PM #
I agree; the unfortunate thing about computerized voting is that it is hackable. I would prefer a paper ballot; not the hanging chads controversy. It wasn’t broken we shouldn’t have tried fixing it.
— Drew Williams Sep 18, 10:28 PM #
yea and in 2000 our survival hung on a chad… I guess paper isn’t always the answer.
— Jeremy Sep 18, 10:35 PM #
There is a more secure way to create an audit trail. Instead of a voter-verified paper audit trail, our research team is investigating a voter-verified video audit trail. We use video to surveillance the machines, not the videos. This is the ideal audit trail! For more information, feel free to contact me and look at http://www.PrimeVotingSystem.com.
— Juan E. Gilbert, Ph.D. Sep 19, 08:03 AM #
No Paper, NO PROOF!
I am a pollworker. I know voters. Voters want to see their vote on a plain sheet of paper, not on some video trail, crypto internet scheme, or other high-tech gadget that will line the pockets of vendors with taxpayer dollars.
This bill will present the vote on paper — PASS HR 811 NOW!
— Maggie Jones, a pollworker Sep 19, 09:03 AM #
Not having an audit trail is stupid. Requiring it to be paper and excluding any other possibility is worse. I imagine there are lots of potential solutions – Mirrored recording of votes in differend physical locations, for instance. . . I don’t know because voting machines are not my field, but the viability of our economy and of most businesses depends upon secure, verifiable electronic data. I can’t imagine that we’d be unable to provide the same for our elections. Those who argue for paper only are reminiscent of the Luddites. . .
— Bill Sep 19, 09:17 AM #
Paper ballots have always had problems! The system is most definitely broken. I trust electronic ballots more than paper ones that can be more easily be manipulated. Create an electronmic audit trail.
— Barry Ackerson Sep 19, 10:39 AM #
I think that there should be a paper print-out, so voters can see if their vote was recorded properly. The data from the voting machine should be sent to a database or excel type spreadsheet, so there is a record or some sort that can be counted at a later date if necessary. I don’t really know how these machines keep track of votes, but some kind of printable record should be kept.
— Frances Hager Sep 19, 11:08 AM #
As a computer scientist, I take great enjoyment in working with computers. I also take great pains to protect what I do. The non-CS person can also see this in the complication being added to login in processes at banking web sites. Because of this background I fear anything but a paper voter-verifiable solution. Please note two things: The paper ballot is generated by the machine and is only used for recounts and audits. And the concern is that someone can hack the code so that elections are “fixed” electronically so an electronic audit trail could also be hacked and video surveillance of machines could destroy the privacy of the voting process.
— Jeff Sep 19, 11:32 AM #
Voting with cards and optical scanners are perfect marriage of the two sides. Data is computerized and results are quickly reported but physical copy of ballots exist (and thankfully with no hanging chads or butterflys).
— Steve Sep 19, 11:52 AM #
I “know” – i.e., deeply believe – that anything electronic can be manipulated by someone skilled enough and motivated enough to do so — I will never believe that a system without paper is secure — Perhaps electronic security is realistic, and perhaps my children or their children will have full confidence in it, but right now I don’t think that most voters do, and that’s what matters, isn’t it?
— jane sherman Sep 19, 02:35 PM #
I agree with Jane S. When I consider the tens of millions of dollars (at least) and thousands of work hours of the numerous tech staff at our institution, ...and the continual problems and failures in our computer and web-based tools that we have (perhaps foolishly) made “necessary” to do our work, I must admit that it will probably be decades before I could even begin to trust any PURELY electronic voting system as much as a paper one (even with all of its potential problems) For now at least, a PURELY electronic system would be terribly irresponsible.
— David T. Sep 19, 04:12 PM #
The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation appears to be very lopsidedly Republican in its advocates and affiliated Washington insiders (see their website at innovationpolicy.org). Anyone smell “astroturf”?
— James Mc. Sep 20, 04:05 PM #