Reply #5: Actually, the technology is there...

[punpirate]

... to produce audio output (one manufacturer may already have it), and it's not that expensive (although Diebold and ES&S will charge Texas dearly for it). Basically, optical scan-to-text and then text-to-speech.

Other manufacturers are trying get the states to buy contracts for the manufacturers to produce cued audio (done in a studio, based on each precinct ballot) with the touch screen results cuing the audio, sort of in the same way electronic phone directory assistance works now. That's how manufacturers are currently meeting HAVA.

Without the paper copy being called the ballot, it has no legal standing. In any recount, because the bill specifies that the electronic input is the ballot, the electronic tally has to be accepted legally as valid over any recount of paper. Period. This is window dressing to make Texans think they're getting honest elections. It's a sham. The best it can do in the case of an election audit is indicate a discrepancy, in which case, the electronic results must be taken over the paper trail.

Whoever sold you on this one should be selling bridges in Brooklyn.

Cheers.