Comments on: Panel recommends against verified voting

By: Randy Klear

Randy Klear — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 05:49:58 +0000

Comparing totals to totals doesn’t help if they both come from the same flawed source. The idea is to have a record a human can interpret that proves that the votes stored in the computer’s memory match the buttons the voters push. A DRE could very easily show voters the votes they think they cast on the final review screen, then store something entirely different on the memory card.

It looks to me as if the committee was playing semantic games with the term “paper record”, lumping tabulation tapes in with actual raw data records. They aren’t the same, not by a long shot.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:31:21 +0000

Jack-

From what I know, Fairfax keeps the printouts of the total vote and verifies it with the vote totals downloaded into the master machine.

By: vjp

vjp — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:44:14 +0000

I think the AP writer did a CYA when he said "all or some jurisdictions." Perhaps those areas that use optical scan machines have an audit trail. But to say that only 5 states have no paper trail is quite misleading.

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 12:40:22 +0000

As far as I know, there is no paper record in Fairfax County, either. Is it possible such records are kept inside the machines? If so, how does a voter verify his vote?