As usual, Bob X. Cringely has really come up with a great solution to the current debacle known as electronic voting in the U.S. Anyone interested really should take 10 minutes and read that article as well as the one before where he talks about the problems a bit more.
Basically he points out how utterly odd it is that there is not a paper trail built into the voting machinery that would allow an audit in the case of a recount or other such situation. As it stands, there is no way to confirm that the machine counted your vote as you cast it, nor is there any way to go back and recount or check or anything. Black boxes of sin!! What is really odd though is that Diebold, the company with the greatest skid-streak on its underwear with regard to electronic voting machines, actually specializes in ATMs and subway/ train ticket machines, machines that all have paper trails that allow for internal checks on function and whatnot. Why wouldn't they have included such a function in their voting machinery? Were they just in such a rush to cash in on the $3,900,000,000 (3.9 billion dollars) the U.S. government is throwing at the problem following the fiasco of Election 2000?
It all doesn't matter though, as Cringely points out that there is a much better solution available to us. We've gotten so addicted to technology we not only make the mistake of thinking that it can solve everything but we twist that further into thinking that it HAS to solve everything. Got a problem? Digitize it!
Why don't we just have a basic system of voting where you check/ mark an X on a sheet of paper with public counting of the pieces of paper afterwards? As Bob points out, Canada has such a simple system and is able to count their national elections in a matter of hours (4) instead of the complete and total inability we had in 2000 to get it done at all. Canada's system costs $1.81 (U.S.) per person to run; the new voting machines that don't guarantee stability, accuracy, accountability or security costs $10/ person.
Part of the reason Cringely rules so much is that he is capable of seeing when the tech is needed and when it isn't. I think that our national faith in technology is almost if not more dangerous than our substance addictions (not just illicit drugs, but pharmaceuticals from the government subsidies on down). Maybe I'll get around to talking about that some other day.
Posted by Nutrimentia at December 15, 2003 11:24 PM | TrackBack