Voting machine technology
The big green monsters used no electricity
The electronic ones use electricity - pray for no power outages
The monster is heavy , bulky, hard to store
The electronic is light, slim, easy to store
The monster - one could see other party candidates - check who is CROSS-PARTIED - too chicken to stand for one particular party, or become a shoo-in. Where does that candidate allegiance lie ?
The electronic - no such option during PA's CLOSED PRIMARY system
Personally I will not vote for ANY candidate who runs unopposed or CROSS-PARTIED either in an inner party contest or cross political party lines.
The monster is hard to "write in."
The electronic as the same problem. If one misspells or does not "write in" the full prime and proper legal candidate's name.
The green monster in some instances was hard to read.
The electronic one is easier to read.
The monster vs. electronic is equal in cases of voter machine breakdowns,
voter fraud, or tampering - hacking. We still do not get a receipt, hard copy for our records.
The monster vs electronic are unequal. Changes - upgrades are easier with the electronic
not with the monster. Yet one must be "computer literate," whereas anybody could make
the changes to the monster.
So have we really IMPROVED the process.
So have we really ADVANCED from pencil and paper ballots.
Robert Parker
York
Voters _never_ got receipts, and certified electronic systems with well-trained personnel provide security which is equal to or better than any existing method. The "paper trail" argument has some merit, but the WinVote touchscreen machines where I live, vote and serve as an Election Officer do not provide such a trial, yet have never lost a vote. The problem is usually the people, no the machines.