The South Carolina Progressive Network had asked Attorney General Henry McMaster to stop the State Election Commission from buying the machines. The group argued the machines do not provide a voter proof on paper that her vote was cast the way she intended.
But the state's new machines give voters a chance to review all of their ballot choices and make changes before finalizing their votes, [McMaster] said.
|Missing the point on electronic voting|
I'm disappointed that neither side in this case seems to have been aware of the reason for a paper ballot. Providing the vote a chance to review their vote is a side issue, a red herring. The purpose of a paper ballot is to provide an independently auditable record of what votes were cast. Yes, the voter should be able to look at the paper ballot and verify that it says what it's supposed to, but then that ballot needs to go into the ballot box so if a recount is necessary it can be taken.
This piece of paper is not a receipt. It is in fact important that it remain in the polling place... not go with the voter as evidence of the way they voted. The last thing we need is something that a voter can provide to a political machine to prove they voted one way or another. A paper receipt is worse than no paper trail at all... it doesn't help with a recount, and it undermines the secret ballot.
Where did this meme come from? Why do people keep parroting it? Is there some conspiracy among voting machine advocates to muddy the waters by bringing up "receipts" until people forget how the voting system is supposed to work?
|Lynx-enhanced by <peter at taronga.com> (Peter da Silva)|