The dust has settled – sort of – in the “lost ballots snafu” in Palm Beach County Florida, enough that I can correct a very serious mis-reading of the events, and briefly summarize the two completely contradictory “outcomes” of investigation: (1) it’s an accounting problem, not a technology problem, and (2) it’s a technology problem. Either way, the result is a failed election – not just a clouded outcome, but a completely failed election. The very short story: a recount was needed, 3000+ ballots couldn’t be
A news article from Denver notes that the city is reversing its experiment from its last election, and going "back to paper."
It's Back to Paper Ballots, Precincts, For This Year's Elections
This only sort of true. Yes, it's true that Denver is using a voting method that election officials say they're more comfortable with, and that some voters will likely view as more trustworthy.
I wanted to call attention to another fine article in the "Freedom to Tinker" blog, this one by Dan Wallach.
Many thanks to what Dave Barry would call “alert reader Brandon F.” for posing a question that comes up a lot concerning digital voting. To paraphrase slightly: why not specify and standardize on ballot paper, ballot layout, ballot marking locations in the layout, and scanning systems to automate counting? Why is everyone making this so complex?
The upcoming California presidential primary is going to be a great real-world source of insight on the perennial question:"What's wrong with paper ballots?"
Of course, paper ballots are a necessary component of elections in most parts of the US, but one variant of that question is about the so-called pure-paper election with hand-marked paper ballots that are counted manually. With this model in mind, people often ask why is voting technology needed at all?
In a previous post, I noted two things we've learned from this election. The first (and subject of that
In a previous post, I noted two things we've learned from this election. The first (and subject of that