Reply #17: "Emergency" Bill Tries to Make Electronic Voting More Accurate, But

[Melissa G]

"Emergency" Bill Tries to Make Electronic Voting More Accurate, But
Will It?
by Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted April 3, 2008.

Looking ahead to the fall election, a House bill lets states decide
if they want to replace paperless voting systems -- or just add
printers.

Efforts to improve the machinery that will count the 2008
presidential vote fell prey to a classic Washington compromise on
Wednesday, when a House committee approved a bill giving money to
both opponents and supporters of controversial paperless electronic
voting systems.

The "Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008," or H.R.
5036, now goes to the House floor, where its goal is helping cities
and counties create a "verifiable" paper trail and audits for
individual votes cast for president and Congress.

But just how that paper trail is achieved is broadly defined in the
bill. Opponents of paperless electronic voting can seek federal funds
to buy paper ballot-based systems, where voters mark ballots by hand
and computer scanners tally the result. Several states, notably
California, Ohio and Florida, are making this transition. Meanwhile,
proponents of all-electronic voting can keep their machines but seek
funds to add printers that theoretically will allow voters to see if
their choices have been properly recorded.

Under the bill, the hand-marked paper ballots and new computer
printouts would be used to verify the accuracy of vote counts.
Jurisdictions taking federal money to buy new machinery would be
required to hand count 2 percent of all ballots as part of an audit
to ensure the vote count is accurate.

http://www.alternet.org/democracy/81163/