Letters to the editor

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive

LOST IN THE MACHINE

No one will know whether tampering accompanies the tally

Editor, The Times:

In "Lose the paranoia about electronic voting" (Times editorial column, April 9), Lance Dickie suggests citizens concerned about electronic voting are paranoid, and that tampering "seems remote." He would like to replace paper ballots with computers that leave no audit trail.

His logic is similar to the judging at the 2002 Winter Olympics Couples Ice Skating event. When the ice skating judge was found to have been influenced by the Russian mafia, the rules were changed so that future prejudiced judges would be impossible to detect. Dickie's vision of the future is similar.

Dickie states that "no current voting system produces a duplicate paper record." Of course not. That's because every current voting system creates a single paper record that allows a post-election recount. No one is asking for duplicate paper records. Dickie is suggesting we eliminate all evidence of fraud by removing all paper records. Now I'm becoming paranoid.

Simply add a printer to the electronic voting machines and the mental health of all those paranoids will be restored.

What "seems remote" is the idea that vote tampering will not occur with an electronic voting system that leaves no evidence. I can't keep my computer running error-free for a single day. One can imagine the problem with keeping every electronic voting machine in the state/nation, with unique ballots in every voting district, running without error. The only reason for electronic voting systems that leave no paper trail is to enable vote fraud. That's not paranoia, that's history that need not be repeated.
Bill Taylor, Renton

Distrust and verify

The companies that make the electronic voting machines also make ATMs, no problem getting a receipt there. Surely a vote is more important than money for lunch; what is so difficult about a receipt?

As for Florida 2000 creating careers for conspiracy theorists, half the country was disenfranchised and there was never a public vetting of the failures and resulting steps to correct the discrepancies. If people had been suspicious and vigilant before that election, the cloud of illegitimacy would not hang over the current administration.

The highest calling of an American is to distrust their government.
Lee Gray, Seattle

Iraq the vote

It only takes one bad election worker with a little technical knowledge five minutes to alter the entire vote count from one machine. With paper ballots, a corrupt election worker can only throw away or alter individual votes, so causing hundred- or thousand-vote swings is difficult.

Without saved paper print-out confirmations of individual votes, a recount is not possible. In order to have confidence in the system, we'll need to have independent election observers watching the electronic transitions from precincts up to the state level.

Perhaps the U.N. can practice here in November before the January Iraq elections.
J. Brian Smith, Redmond

Fatal error detected

As Lance Dickie makes clear, computerized voting is coming, and we may as well get used to it.

However, it is essential that the voting machines provide a printed "receipt" to the voter. This step in the process is necessary to maintain the public's faith in the accuracy and reliability of the system, and this paper printout, verified by each individual voter and then turned in to the ballot box to be available in case of the need for a recount, is a crucial part of the system.

I've experienced enough computer glitches and crashes to believe that providing a separate hard copy of each vote that can be counted and verified is the element that will make computerized voting palatable to the average voter.
Paula Bennett, Seattle

Y2K disaster

Please refrain from your blind adherence to the conventional wisdom about the 2000 presidential election. In his recent column, Lance Dickie included this statement:

"Snohomish County Auditor Bob Terwilliger said electronic voting eliminates the issue at the heart of the Florida recount disputes: discerning voter intention."

"Voter intention" was a small part of what went wrong with Florida's election in 2000. The issue at the "heart," was that members of one political party, using not-so-sophisticated database methodology, excluded tens of thousands of eligible voters (most of them African Americans) from exercising their basic civil rights. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

Dickie calls for people to abandon misconceptions about electronic voting; I would ask him to do the same about the 2000 election.
Ryan Carson, Seattle

HAVE GUN

Will baffle

"Blurring the line between soldiers and hired guns" (Ruben Navarrette Jr. syndicated column, April 8), shows a growing ignorance in what a "mercenary" really is. (According to Narvarrette): "modern-day mercenary. ... individuals who are willing to go to war (or at least step into a war zone) for profit... "

So are journalists "mercenaries"? Journalists become embedded in wars; why? Fame, fortune and a coveted seat at the nightly news desk. Soldiers? Decent pay, benefits and the GI Bill. So does that make them "greedy, sordid and selfish"? Some may have lost family in 9-11, some are patriotic and still utter "God" in their "Pledge of Allegiance," and some are in it to try to make the world a better place.

Security contractors protect people/property that would otherwise be vulnerable due to military cutbacks.

"One group takes with it the prayers of a grateful nation. The other takes its chances." They are all taking chances and should all receive our prayers regardless of whether they get E-1 pay, six figures or talk into a camera. What chances have you taken, Mr. Navarrette?
Spencer Prentice, Seattle

TAX RAP

50 sent

In working out my taxes this year, I find that I am now forced to pay back the $1,600 I received from the U.S. Treasury last summer. No notice was enclosed with that check to suggest it was a loan rather than a gift.

In my case, the money went into savings and now it comes back out. So the federal government's actual gift to me is $28 in interest I earned on that amount. In the meantime, 37 percent of the taxes I pay this year will go toward interest on the national debt.

I'd much rather they had kept the money and put it to good use. The interest thus avoided would have been at a much higher rate. And they could have saved the cost of printing and mailing all those checks.

Rather than giving me $1,600, the government has cost me $50 or so. That's stupid.
Thomas Hildebrandt, Mercer Island

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company