by Wyoming Liberty Group Staff
While there have been great leaps forward in technology in all areas of life, fair and honest elections remain a process that is so fundamental to the success of our republic that the application of technology for expediencies sake must be examined with a jaundiced eye. All electronic voting machines and tabulation systems are subject to fraud, manipulation and outright hacking- as we have seen reported over and over again. Paper ballots, especially combined with risk limited audits, establish an irrefutable trail of accountability that no other form of election management offers.
If an electronic voting machine of any sort is suspected of involvement in fraud, the only resolution of the problem resides in the software, hardware and data storage of the machine and the servers and transmission of data associated with them. Since these are also the source of the problem, there is no longer an independent, incorruptible source of original data to resolve the accusation of fraud! Even if the voting machines function is limited to OCR scanning of paper ballots, the process of accumulating, storing, transmitting and verifying results is fraught with failures and manipulation.
When paper ballots are presented to registered voters, tabulated correctly and then stored and the results correlated with a risk limited audit, then the results are highly reliable. In the event of a challenge to the voting process the original data is available, and can be recounted and re-tabulated. When there is a conflict between the results of the original tabulation and the risk limited audit, then a more thorough audit is indicated. This, then is the gold standard for the ballot process.
Risk limited audits are one of the most cost effective and powerful tools for ensuring election fairness. When combined with paper ballots, the end result is a well accounted for electorate with verified results. A risk limited audit manually compares a select number of paper ballots to the tabulated results. In order to be effective, the paper ballots must be securely stored and available for the statistical sampling, and the number of ballots recorded manually increases when the election results are closer.
Why then risk the integrity of this process through using voting machines? For convenience? Expediency? The voting machines on offer are riddled with problems, including known hacking defects, are expensive to acquire and maintain, and deprive local citizens of rightful pay and job opportunities. Those who propose amendments to the paper ballot process suffer from two types of inadequate understanding: one, that the electronic processes are always subject to software, hardware and data storage and transmission problems, and two, that spending the state's money on these machines is an economic deprivation to the local economy.
It is time to insist on the value of each citizens vote and properly account for it with paper ballots and risk limited audits. Only through these easily verifiable and accurate processes can the integrity of the vote be guaranteed. The cost, availability and accuracy of these methods are far superior to any costly, expensive to maintain electronic system that is subject to fraud, manipulation and hacking. Let's insist that our worth as citizens not be compromised for the sake of some theoretically better and risky electronic system!
The cost of paper ballots, hand counting and risk limited audits is minimal compared to value delivered, or even of the cost of electronic voting machines.