You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #1: Why stop with touch screen? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-29-10 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why stop with touch screen?
Obviously it makes things very simple and easy to administer when a touch screen is used. It's quick, easy to use, and easy on the election officials who don't have to make any personal decisions. But the problem is the cost. You still have to have a pretty large number of election officials to plug the machines in, go thru the motions of certifying the machines, where that is required, and standing around to refer the voter to a vendor rep when there are questions or when (as often happens) the vote is flipping wildly from one candidate or choice to another.

So why stop there? The machine takes the pressure off the election officials but why even have the officials when they don't have anything to do? It would be much less expensive if there were no election officials at all or as few as possible. These extra officials are an obvious drain on the budget of states, especially those states strapped for cash (partly because of the purchase of the voting machines). And finally, why have the machines? Since the machines are unverifiable anyway, why not just let one or two people decide the outcome and post it soon after people vote? If you're choosing between unverifiable modalities, wouldn't it be better to rely on actual people who can be held accountable for their decisions?

Think of the savings. The counting could take place in no time and the posting of the results could be done almost immediately, certainly more quickly than would be the case with any other method of counting. It could be called the Single Sayer system. One person or at most two or three would immediately "say" what the result is. Get rid of all the middle men and middle machines as well.

I think it's an idea whose time has come.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC