Modernize voting machinery

Voting machines are much of the problem. It' s been proven over and over again that they are not accurate. Why should we use a method that we know doesn't work?

The only advantage mechanised systems have, as I see it, is that they can be counted more quickly than paper ballots can be counted by hand.  Since that's not the case in these Benighted States, they should move to the system irishgit advocates.  Then people sit in a big hall after the polls close and count the votes.  All the candidates stand on a stage while someone reads the results out and someone else whispers their party affiliations.(Separate races and initiatives would be on separate ballots, colour coded or deposited in separate boxes).

Throw out the machines. Have everyone in America congregate in Missouri with their barbeques and do a good old fashioned show of hands...

It's not a matter of "modernizing" voting machinery that's crucial.  It's a matter of making sure the votes are counted accurately, no matter what method is used.  One of our great national disgraces in the United States is that third world countries have more efficient and accurate means to register voters and hold elections than we do.  Ridiculous.  These new electronic machines, which can be very easily hacked into, and provide no paper trail, are the absolute pits, enfranchised by a federal government more interested in finding a "solution" as quickly as possible than finding a solution that actually works.  And, it doesn't help much that the CEOs of the two biggest manufactuers of electronic voting machines are unabashed GOP supporters.  Those douchebags should be removed from their positions and replaced by people who are either political neutral or apolitical.  But, don't count on it.

The perception that machinery is a fix or even a requirement is the problem. The idea that they eliminate any possibility of voter fraud is laughable. The hardest method of elections to rig? Properly run, and I emphasize, properly run, pencil and paper ballots, where the voter marks an X and puts it in a ballot box to be counted at the closing of polls. Can fraud happen then? Absolutely, and I can show you how to do it if you want, but all those methods can be defeated with basic precautions. Or are there not enough election workers who know how to count and add...?

If the voting machinery works then don't fix it but obviously if it doesn't work then fix it :)

It's very easy to write a computer program that kicks every 21st vote for party A over to party B and when finished erases every trace of itself.UPDATE:Whether or not this actually happened will never be known for sure, but computerized voting is an invitation to fraud.

We used the simple paper and pencil here until the 2006 elections. We never had a problem with it. I would think that putting a little more time into counting the votes by hand would be preferable to the convenience of electronics considering we are electing a President, not microwaving a burrito.

Yeah...this has worked well so far, huh? Elections are a government-run affair, yet people wonder why they are so screwed up.

I agree. Let's get a device designed so that you attach electrodes to each voter's head while the voter is in the ballot box. When the voter makes a bone-headed choice, then you zap 'em. That would aid our elections tremendously!   It would also give a little comic relief for the election workers.

Do we get to vote on this?

It's really not that hard to cast a vote...I've done it a few times, and never came up against any major confusion...

Yes, this is a very good idea. Here in Florida, newly elected Governor Charlie Crist is undertaking a $20 million project to completely overhaul the voting machinery in the state to include computerized systems with an identifiable paper trail. Jeb Bush in 2002 upgraded the state to a computerized system, but the lack of a paper ballot raised concerns that databases could be easily manipulated to fix elections. Glitches in the system have been known to cause deletions of votes, as what happened in Sarasota, FL in Nov, 2006, where the Democratic candidate for Congress lost thousands of votes due to the fact that the computerized voting system undercounted quite a few votes in some districts. At least laser scanned paper ballots will now create an easily verifiable means of counting votes without dealing with computerized systems or those onerous paper punch card ballots that caused so much confusion in Florida during the 2000 election.

I suppose that the merits of this suggestion (i.e. "modernize" voting machinery) depends on what one considers "modern". It seems to me that complaints regarding voting machines are relatively recent, suggesting that it's the more modern machines that are at least part of the problem (real or perceived). With that said, I don't believe that ballots and machines are intentionally designed to be confusing, so the weak link would be the voters themselves. How much of the public resources are we to spend on this matter when this weakest link remains? Nevertheless, if more "modern" voting machines can speed up and increase the security of the process, I can go with it.

Only if I get a reciept.There HAS to be a paper trail,folks.Otherwise,no one can prove anything and it's all based on your "faith" in the machines and the folks running them.

Actually, I think the old gear operated machines may be the best. They still use them in some places. Results are instant. Errors are minimal.

Yes, if only every state had the high tech machines that Florida had..... it would be like this example video: http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=floridavot ing.wmv

this is being implemented across the country, as budgets allow

My town has recently decided to walk into the 21st century but some of the nut jobs who live here are sure to put the fool in fool proof (LOL)!

numbah is scared of techno stuff.

Im still partial to the levers.

People had problems with a punch card can you imagine the problems some would have if it was computerized?

But no computers without a paper trail.

Yea right, if the democrats can't figure out paper ballots now they are supposed to master cutting edge technology such as biometrics or even voice activated interactive voting machines. Perhaps that is a way to increase the excuses? Since only democrats have problems reading the ballot, why don't we make them study and pass a test before they vote to make sure they don't accidently vote for Hitler or Stalin. That way Gore wins!! Yippe!

Strangely, if one investigates this, the touch screen voting machines are only +/-6% accurate compared to 3% for the paper or scan ballots that they are supposed to replace. That's right, we will never know who won the 2000 election, because even the old methods are not accurate enough. Here's an idea: add touch screens that print a scannable form that gets checked a second time, along with a receipt that tells you how you voted for exit polls. THAT is modernized.

The logical part of me knows this is a bad idea. The liberal part of me thinks well, at least all of the hackers I know are liberal.

If by modernize you mean make sure it works correctly and accurately, then yes, by all means. Otherwise if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Too many people don't understand the machines we have now, so how in the world are they going to understand more modern ones?

Louisiana has really simple voting machines. You push the button with the guy's name on it, then when you're done choosing, you press "SEND" and it tallys the results and clears the board. If you can't figure that out, you shouldn't be voting. That kind of interface should be standard for the country. That way, you just push a button in Washington, and the results are tallied immediately.

In Florida, one of the reasons behind the great confusion was that the machines were so archaic that even the manufacturer recommended that they be replaced.

I have four words for all of you. NO...MORE...BUTTERFLY...BALLOTS! Everyone wants their vote to count, and unfortunately for the country, Gore had more pregnant chads than Dubya, and so Gore really won! If we'd all just fill out the ballots the normal way, than Gore would have won and we would not have an idiot in office. I've said it before, I'll say it again. HAGELIN 2004! And while we're at it, we need better voting machines if we insist on keeping butterfly ballots. Ones that count all chads.

Greater technology would ensure accuracy and avoid the terror of another blown election in which one candidate (in this case Dubya) has to have a conservative Supreme Court make a decision to foul the democratic voting system up and elect the wrong person.

It could all be so easy. Just take a form with the candidates name put it in your envelope put it in the voting'box', go home and wait for the results. Why the US had to make the voting ballots so complicated is beyond me.

I’m all for modernization, but is the machinery the real problem? Sure there were errors this time and in the past, there is no such thing as a flawless system when humans are involved, which brings me to my point. Maybe the machines are not the problem. Seems like they delivered acceptable performance in the past, only this time some people didn’t get the answer they were looking for. Since these same people were the ones who couldn’t figure out how to use the machines, they obviously can’t blame themselves, which brings me to my answer. Don’t spend my hard earned tax dollars on machines that some people are going to know how to use anyway and cause the same problem. Set up classes that people can pay for out of their own pocket to get training.

The trouble with modernizing equipment is that maybe the equipment is not the root problem. The systematic way to voting may be the real issue. Whether the equipment is new, or old, the process can be either good or bad. Putting a lot of money into new equipment may not solve the problem of a person's ability to understand how to vote. I believe I have a solution to this delima. I have developed a systematic way to understand the root cause of this process. It well may be the equipment, in some cases, and this new way to asses the system will tell you. See below: VS 2001 (Voting System Certification) Purpose: To assure that votes will be counted accurately, securely, and efficiently of every American Citizen. People run the government, by the people who elected them, for these same people to be governed by. What is government, but a reflection of the people who voted them into office? At least, they are a reflection of those votes that were counted.  The busines... Read more