Paper Trails Don't Ensure Accurate E-Voting Totals

An anonymous reader writes "In an new report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation they say that paper trails increase costs and can actually reduce the chances a voters' choices are accurately counted. Congress is considering a 'Voter Confidence and Increased Accountability Act of 2007,' which would mandate 'voter-verified' paper audit trails."

Paper Trails Ranked By Value

[Nymz]

High - When I buy anything with a credit card - (requires ID, receive receipt)
Medium - When I get $20 out of an ATM - (requires ID, receive receipt)
Low - When I buy a hamburger & fries - (no ID, receive receipt)
Worthless - When I vote - (no ID, no receipt, no confidence)

Re:Worthless article

[srussia]

Even the marbles-in-a-jug thing is easily falsifiable since anyone with two marbles gets two votes, let alone with a hundred marbles.

Baloney! Anyone who bothers to vote has obviously lost all his marbles already.

in other news:

[e**(i pi)-1]

In other news: Backups Don't Ensure your data are safe.

"In an new report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation they say that backups can increase costs and can actually reduce the chances that users data have to be recreated."

Finally! A rational analysis!

[volkris]

Finally somebody getting around to speaking against the amazingly widespread myth that somehow a printed ballot is more accurate, more trustworthy, or more useful than an electronic record.

It's pretty incredible to see the Slashdot crowd speak of paper trails as if they were some sort of magic talisman ready to right the evils of the election system. Slashdotters of all people should understand that the whole point of digital computation is to improve precision of calculations far beyond what could be achieved by manual counts and paper trails, and that proper application of encryption and communications technologies can entirely reverse the weaknesses of either paper or poorly implemented eVoting.

It's so blindingly simple: a paper backup cannot possibly have the precision needed to resolve a close election. It's physically impossible. So what happens when the paper disagrees with the electronics? When the backup is more flawed from the start what good is it?

I could go on, but wow... it's so refreshing to see this story posted to Slashdot. I just wish the rest of the US would stop and think for a second to demand decent electronic voting systems instead of insisting on a broken solution to the wrong problem.

Error

[PPH]

In an new report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

You misspelled Diebold.