It is still vulnerable to a deliberate fraud: making the bar-code not agree with the printed output. Given the large number of people who believe the Diebold voting machines are intended to perpetrate electoral fraud, your suggestion doesn't fix everything.
Most of the rest of the world uses crosses on a ballot paper, which are read by hand. That's about as close to foolproof as you can get, because the large number of people needed to do the count makes wholesale fraud very difficult to manage.
It seems to me that elections are too important to allow computers to do the counting.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-01-22 10:19 pm (UTC)It is still vulnerable to a deliberate fraud: making the bar-code not agree with the printed output. Given the large number of people who believe the Diebold voting machines are intended to perpetrate electoral fraud, your suggestion doesn't fix everything.
Most of the rest of the world uses crosses on a ballot paper, which are read by hand. That's about as close to foolproof as you can get, because the large number of people needed to do the count makes wholesale fraud very difficult to manage.
It seems to me that elections are too important to allow computers to do the counting.