OK, there is a big freak-out among many people regarding electronic voting. Some are claiming that it will be the downfall of democracy; that the computer manufacturer could manipulate the outcome of an election for its immense financial gain, or that a hacker could hijack a voting machine. Some are calling for the country to revert back to paper ballots. This amazes me, considering the stink made over chads in 2000. Some wish to redo the layout of the old paper ballots to reduce the possibility of miscounts. I say, why take a step backward? Here in Nevada all of our voting is done electronically, but before you cast your ballot, a printout of your choices appears to your left. This way, should an election be contested, there is a paper record. You don't get the printout; it's stored in the event that the election is audited. This to me seems like the perfect way to guarentee a reduction of vote manipulation.
And to those who support a full step backwards to paper, allow me to pose a few questions and comments to you. Do you perhaps have you memory obscured by the bliss of reminescence? Because I'd be willing to wager that voter fraud is a an alltime low in this country. We can trace fraud back to political machines and loose restraints, allowing people to vote multiple times and allowing employers to harass and/or entice employees into voting certain ways. Now let's move forward. No longer can a person vote multiple times, dead people can only vote in Chicago, and there is no longer a record of how you vote. Now fraud is no longer external but internal. People make pencil marks on paper. An election officer breaks their oath, decides your vote sucks, and erases your check mark and puts their own. Fast forward to punch cards. A card is not lined up well, now an election officer has to interpret your voting. They interpret for the candidate they favor. Now, finally, we have a system that cannot be tampered with easily; records are available on the computers; records are printed on paper; the officers have no way to alter the votes of others both electronically and physically.
So everyone should have electronic voting with a printed paper trail. The end.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
...are far better than paperless touchscreens, but they are a poor alternative to optical scan.
Recounting votes on a roll is a big headache.
Touchscreens are either more expensive or lead to long lines...since every voter has to cast their vote on the machine, voters have to stand around and wait until a machine comes open in order to vote. With optical scanning equipment, each voter can take a ballot, mark their votes at the same time, then just slide it into the machine on their way out the door. In order to reduce the wait, you have to buy a bunch of touchscreens; you only need one optical scan per voting location.
Finally...if you live in a small precinct served by only one touchscreen...and where they follow one of several practices that documents the order in which citizens voted, all you have to do to find out how everyone voted is to compare the votes on the "toilet paper" roll to whatever document you have that shows the order in which people voted.
I'm not opposed to electronic voting; I hope some day we can vote online. But I know enough about touchscreens to know that any state government who buys them is not serving its citizens well.
As far as corruption goes, our elections are as corrupt as ever.
_____________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century