Exactly right.
December 1st, 2006
Although there weren’t any major problems with electronic voting machines this election cycle, that doesn’t justify the need for these machines. What is the compelling argument for electronic voting? Is this a case of technology for the sake of technology? What is wrong with one ballot, one person? Furthermore, that the concept of paper-based audit trails even was discussed meant that the idea was fundamentally weak from the start.
Brad Friedman nails it here.
No related posts.
Did you just say ‘margin of error’? Every vote counts, you evangelical Rethuglican.
You’ve answered your own question “…there weren’t any major problems with electronic voting machines this election cycle.” Any new implemented technology will be imperfect. As long as the margin of error is acceptable and there’s built in checks and balances for accuracy, and a plan B, who cares. Perhaps this is a stepping stone to online voting from your home PC. That would surely increase voter turnout? If what you’ve said is true (quoted) why complain?
If you want a concrete answer, how about they save trees?