Comment Re:Uh, no. (Score 1) 154
If you knew specifics about voting processes, you would know that I'm not suggesting heavier workloads. In fact, currently, precincts using DREs (direct recording electronic voting machines) usually employ twice as many pollworkers as equally sized precincts using OS because of the specialized knowledge you need if something goes wrong. Maybe a pollworker has to feed ballots through a machine, which takes 10 seconds each. Is distributing and collecting voter access cards for DREs dramatically less work?
If you have DREs that print voter verifiable ballots, what happens if there is a malfunction on election day? If you have 4 electronic voting machines to serve the precinct population as the average precinct does, you have just lost 25% of your capacity to serve voters. I'm looking at this through the lens of thinking of an election day as a unique event that you have to get right. Therefore, everything needed for the election day should be in place, not created "on the fly" as with a DRE with paper trail. Pencil breaks? Get another one. Optical scanner breaks down? Save all the ballots and scan them later. It's a durable process. If a DRE breaks down, you've just decreased your ability to let people cast ballots. Any technology that requires ballots to be generated on election day as the potential to fail on election day. Hence, even if we had DREs that printed ballots, precincts would still feel the need to generate backup paper ballots prior to election day.
What if the arrival rate peaks at lunch time and right after work more than anticipated? What if you have a higher turnout than anticipated? You can expand OS capacity by adding additional privacy booths, whereas you are SOL with 4 expensive voting machines and no expandable service capacity.
I brought in "side issues" for two reasons. First of all, "ease of voting" isn't the only criteria upon which someone should judge a voting system. As I mentioned, there are many criteria. The combination of cost, reliability, ease of use, and security of optical scan far outweighs any gains from more complicated, more prone to fail, more expensive DREs, with or without paper trail. Optical scan ballots are NOT butterfly ballots, which haven't even been mentioned in this conversation.
Second of all, when someone makes the ridiculous claim
IMHO, there is no argument that justifies the costs and problems of DREs, in any iteration. I have heard some respectable arguments for DREs. But I don't think anyone who knows anything about the nuances of creating a voting process would argue that DREs are "superior in every way". And don't get me started on software upgrades, longevity issues, maintenance costs, replacement parts, licensing, and a boatload of other problems with DREs that most people don't even know about. Have you ever talked with ES&S or Diebold? Have you ever talked with an elections supervisor? Everyone thought DREs were a good idea until they actually realized what they were getting into. There is a reason why a lot of areas are abandoning this technology, and the reasons hold whether or not you have a voter verifiable paper trail.
If you have DREs that print voter verifiable ballots, what happens if there is a malfunction on election day? If you have 4 electronic voting machines to serve the precinct population as the average precinct does, you have just lost 25% of your capacity to serve voters. I'm looking at this through the lens of thinking of an election day as a unique event that you have to get right. Therefore, everything needed for the election day should be in place, not created "on the fly" as with a DRE with paper trail. Pencil breaks? Get another one. Optical scanner breaks down? Save all the ballots and scan them later. It's a durable process. If a DRE breaks down, you've just decreased your ability to let people cast ballots. Any technology that requires ballots to be generated on election day as the potential to fail on election day. Hence, even if we had DREs that printed ballots, precincts would still feel the need to generate backup paper ballots prior to election day.
What if the arrival rate peaks at lunch time and right after work more than anticipated? What if you have a higher turnout than anticipated? You can expand OS capacity by adding additional privacy booths, whereas you are SOL with 4 expensive voting machines and no expandable service capacity.
I brought in "side issues" for two reasons. First of all, "ease of voting" isn't the only criteria upon which someone should judge a voting system. As I mentioned, there are many criteria. The combination of cost, reliability, ease of use, and security of optical scan far outweighs any gains from more complicated, more prone to fail, more expensive DREs, with or without paper trail. Optical scan ballots are NOT butterfly ballots, which haven't even been mentioned in this conversation.
Second of all, when someone makes the ridiculous claim
Electronic voting machines are in virtually every way superior to paper voting machines.
then there are no "side issues"..."virtually every way" means every single relevant aspect of comparing OS to DRE are fair game. If you really think claiming there are no ways that optical scan paper ballots are superior to voting machines is "insightful commentary", you're cracked and know nothing about voting.IMHO, there is no argument that justifies the costs and problems of DREs, in any iteration. I have heard some respectable arguments for DREs. But I don't think anyone who knows anything about the nuances of creating a voting process would argue that DREs are "superior in every way". And don't get me started on software upgrades, longevity issues, maintenance costs, replacement parts, licensing, and a boatload of other problems with DREs that most people don't even know about. Have you ever talked with ES&S or Diebold? Have you ever talked with an elections supervisor? Everyone thought DREs were a good idea until they actually realized what they were getting into. There is a reason why a lot of areas are abandoning this technology, and the reasons hold whether or not you have a voter verifiable paper trail.
