funny. I think what they've got is superior. further: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlCOj1dElDY&feature=player_embedded a 'security analysis'/expose' on e-voting. I take the position that paperless is no better than some e-voting and worse than papered voting with follow-up confirmation [by mail, for example] in getting the best estimate of the will of the most stable popular majority. I would like to point out... that just as the 'man behind the curtain,' elections are as honest, or almost as honest, as the transporters, counters, reporters... others [not to include technicians]? Also, the "LOW-tech" seals are better than other methods, relying on both the physical manipulation of material in such a way that passes non-skeptical [casual] scrutiny [by many], as well as requiring "on-location hacks" for each tampered machine. I notice each of the voting machines on this video must be physically manipulated [including breaking visually-obvious, less-than-generic physical seals] as well as physical tamperage. I do note than the procurement of devices used in voting and the knowledge of virus-laded chips making factory lines adds an uncomfortable factor favoring paper to paperless, in this case. I am reminded that the Indian census takes 'head-shots,' thumbprints and [not blood samples], but names of the most reclusive they are able to contact to complete government survey.
...So I will.