[nxc18]

The whole concept of electronic voting machines seems ridiculous to me. Not only are they open to attacks at every level, there really isn't a significant benefit to implementing them, beyond possibly saving some trees.

The peace of mind in trusting election results seems well worth the hassle of paper.

The other big component that I think is missing from the debate over electronic voting is the cost to communities. I loved voting (on paper) in the 2012 election, then staying up a few hours to tally the ballots with the community. Voters came together to count the ballots together and deliver a final count, which has the dual benefit of getting as many eyes on the process as possible (less chance of fraud) and putting 'by the people' back into the election process.

I've seen complaints that that isn't scalable, but I don't buy it. Any community can be broken up into sub-groups that can cast their ballots locally and work together to tally them, even if a group just covers a city block.

[fryguy]

One could argue that a properly implemented method of voting that involves computers in some capacity would decrease the chance of fraud, and allow voters to verify that their vote was counted. It could also allow more votes to be counted because it could immediately tell them their vote was invalid (how many hanging chads in Florida 2000?).

The problem is that we have companies like Diebold make this stuff. Companies that want to make a buck and cover their asses rather than make something secure and good for the people.