Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Poll Analyses
Share on Facebook 2 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Seting the Record Straight: My Response to Avi Rubin's "Pull the Plug"

By       (Page 1 of 3 pages) (View How Many People Read This)   No comments
Author 2338
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Roy Lipscomb
Become a Fan
(From Black Box Voting): Kudos to Roy Lipscomb for setting the record straight on
this.

* * * * *

From Roy Lipscomb:

Avi Rubin published an essay in FORBES Magazine on September 4 in
which he cautioned against the use of touch-screen voting machines.
(His essay, "Pull the Plug," can be purchased online for $2 from
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0904/040.html?partner=alerts&_requestid=2972 )

I felt disquieted by his conclusion, and after a week or so I sent a
letter to the editor. It was published it in the October 2 issue.

Below is the published version, followed by my original version. The
original version includes reference to an additional study, and also
contains citations for all references.

Regards,

Roy

------------------------------------------------

Here's the published version:

MACHINE POLITICS

In "Pull the Plug" (On My Mind, Sept. 4, p. 40), Aviel Rubin does an
excellent job of diagnosing the ills of voting machines. But his
remedy falls short. He proposes that we cast votes on paper ballots
and count the votes by means of optical scanners, concluding, "Even
the designer of the system cannot cheat if voters check the printed
ballots and if the optical scanners are audited."

The two conditions impose no real-world constraints. Paper ballots
printed by voting machines are unreliable. Studies have shown that
many or most voters do not bother to confirm the contents of such
ballots. When participants in one study were asked if their printed

ballots contained errors, 60% admitted that they did not know.

Rubin recommends that we use voting machines to print the ballots, but
not to tabulate them because these machines, even if they are audited,
are too untrustworthy for vote-counting. Instead, he advised we
tabulate results by means of an optical scanner--itself a kind of
voting machine.

The irony of this eludes him.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

 

Rate It | View Ratings

Roy Lipscomb Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Roy Lipscomb, Emeritus Director for Technology, Illinois Ballot Integrity Project

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Don't Vote Early, Don't Vote Absentee, Don't Vote by Touch Screen

Job Creation? Businesses Prefer Root Canal

Pollwatching at Chicago's Central Vote-Tabulating Room

In time for Halloween, spectre of Internet voting re-emerges

Pollwatcher Tools: A Carrot, a Stick, and a Checklist

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: