WI Assembly OKs Voting Paper Trail 197
AdamBLang writes "Madison Wisconsin's Capitol Times reports 'With only four dissenting votes, the state Assembly easily passed a bill that would require that electronic voting machines create a paper record. The goal of the legislation is to make sure that Wisconsin's soon-to-be-purchased touch screen machines create a paper ballot that can be audited to verify election results.' Slashdot has previously reported on this bill." More from the article: "Wisconsin cannot go down the path of states like Florida and Ohio in having elections that the public simply doesn't trust ... By requiring a paper record on every electronic voting machine, we will ensure that not only does your vote matter in Wisconsin, but it also counts."
Re:Now If Only.. (Score:3, Informative)
Except then you no longer have secret balloting if you can connect people back to their votes after they've been cast.
Re:Also good for error checking? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Good but not great (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good but not great (Score:2, Informative)
(not to steal your thunder) For the lazy, and those who hate PDF's the relevent paragraph:
The bill also provides that the coding for the software that is used to operate the system on election day and to tally the votes cast must be publicly accessible and must be able to be used to independently verify the accuracy and reliability of the operating and tallying procedures to be employed at an election. In addition, the bill provides that each municipal clerk or board of election commissioners of a municipality that uses an electronic voting system for voting at an election shall provide to any person, upon request, at municipal expense, the coding for the software that the municipality uses to operate the system and to record and tally the votes cast.
Re:California already did this (Score:1, Informative)
What's wrong with the old paper ballot system? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Prop 200 (Score:3, Informative)
As a campaigner here in AZ against Prop 200, I suppose I have to answer, although it seldom appears that explaining this results in much information being absorbed. Warning: as some actual facts are included below, it's a fairly lengthy post.
First, prop 200 requires proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. This makes it extraordinarily difficult to register people. In the past, voter registration drives have generally been run (by both parties and nonpartisan groups) by going out to where people are, with a table or some clipboards, and getting them to sign up. This is no longer possible; people need to have a copy of their birth certificate, naturalization papers or passport with them, and attach a photocopy of it to their registration form. This pretty much means no one can register without planning to do so and going down to the county recorder's office during business hours. This isn't exactly a flat bias, either; it's much more difficult for people who are less likely to have their paperwork carefully filed away where they can get it (students, the poor, non-native-english-speakers) and those who have less free or flexible time to deal with the problem (pretty much the same list.) (Caveat: the big exception is that if you have a recent, Arizona driver's license, you've already dealt with the same problem at the DMV and don't need to again. That's many eligible voters but far from all. OTOH, if you have changed your name - usually because you married - you also need the documentation of that name change attached. Sorry, ladies!)
Then we get to actually voting. Now you need to bring proof of identity with you to the polls. These rules were only finalized a few weeks ago, so apologies if I get any details wrong. Your proof of ID has to be government-issued photo ID, or else the typical pain-in-the-ass of multiple utility bills or the like. In either case the address must match the address you're registered at, which legally has to be your current residence - moved since you got your driver's license five years ago? Sorry! A student in a dorm who doesn't get utility bills? Oops! The same groups, again, have a harder time voting. The alert Slashdot security geek, or anyone who has ever gotten into a bar with a fake ID, will note that this methodology isn't exactly a vast increase in security. It will, however, make lines at the polls a lot longer, particularly in places with high concentrations of - again - students, transient people, non-english-speakers. And it raises the bar for knowing the rules in advance. Who's least likely to get the information about the new rules? You guessed it. Who has the least flexibility in their lives to devote a couple of hours to the voting process? Yup.
We had to fight to get these rules as lenient as they are, actually; at least if you don't meet the ID requirement, you're supposed to be able to vote a provisional ballot, although the process for counting those leaves a great deal to be desired. It took a veto by our governor, gods bless her, to get that far - even though it would seem to be a basic, fundamental idea to anyone who actually cared about vote integrity: no ID? we'll check your status afterwards.
Meanwhile, the real hole in the voting system - I don't consider this an actual problem, but certainly from a security geek standpoint it's the obvious point of attack - is voting by mail. Far easier to fake in quantity than it is at the actual polls, right? No ID requirement was added to VBM at all. Yup. Show up in person, you're lucky you don't have to take a DNA scan. Send in a piece of paper from anywhere in the world, no effort is made to verify its source whatsoever. Who's least likely to vote by mail? There we are again.
The list of peop
Re:Actually (Score:3, Informative)