Never heard any comments like "let's make every vote count" when the dems were in power.

The right to vote and to have that vote count is one that every American should have, regardless of party affiliation.

Now, I disagree that votes must have a paper trail in order to accomplish that. In my job, I deal with millions of dollars in transactions for my company. If the history on those was lost, we'd be in major trouble. But we recognize that paper copies of that information is not any more secure than digital copies. On top of that, it is wasteful.

Jon does have a point that it definitely seems that since the Gore/Bush campaign, democrats have jumped on this issue. I think it is pretty understandable as to why. The funny thing to me is that the party that pats itself on the back on a regular basis for it's environmental stance suddenly wants to waste a bunch of paper/trees unnecessarily.

Truth, as a computer programmer, and one doubtful of the integrity of some in government and politics regardless of party, I want to see a printout of my vote. I know how easy it would be to program the system to vote contrary to my selections. If I see my votes on paper, then put the ballot in the counter, there are checks and balances in the system. If there is any question, the ballots can be counted by hand.

In your company, I am sure there are internal controls to make certain, for instance, that the person who enters invoices for payment is not the same person who prints the checks; the person who prints them does not sign them; and the person who signs them does not reconcile the bank statement. Or at least I hope that is the case. There are numerous people who are part of the process to assure the integrity of the system, and of those running the system.

That same control happens when there is a printed ballot on an electronic voting machine. Until I get a printout, I will never be sure my vote is counted as cast.

As regarding wasted paper, there are many government reports that are printed, filed and never read. Now there is a place to save trees (and money).

The few trees that would be felled is a miniscule price compared to trust in our electoral process. Allen is quite right about how insecure these systems are and as the recent election showed unreliable with thousands of lost votes. Truth we couldn't reconstitute those, they were just lost. People were disenfranchised.

We need to bite the bullet and only have machines with a human readable output. That means a paper trail.

I think ALL elections are rigged! Every one. There's never been a warm fuzzy for me in the voting process.

OK, that's a little tongue-in-cheek.

The trust aspect all boils down to the Board of Elections. Whether they're counting pieces of paper, or processing electronic files, whether you get a printout after you push the button, or not, if the people behind the tallying aren't honest, it's all for naught.

Suppose you take your printout to the Board, and ask to see where your vote entered the process, do you think you'll be able to? And how much of our tax dollars will it take to give them the staff they'd need if we all descended on them to check?

(Full disclosure: I edited the book "Black Box Voting," by Bev Harris and David Allen, although I didn't get paid for that work.)

The danger is real. But I should point out that a voter-verified paper ballot isn't necessarily intended to prevent vote fraud. Preventing vote fraud is probably impossible. It is, rather, one essential part among several (another example being public counting of ballots at each precinct) designed to create an auditing system so bulletproof that any fraud would be detected quickly.

I've reported on this fairly extensively, and the computer scientists I've spoken with advocate paper trails for electronic voting machines.

I STILL don't recall this being an issue when the liberals were in power.

Jon, could that be because elections were never so close before?

Jon,
When was the last time a liberal was in power? I hope you don't mean Clinton, because he was FAR from a liberal!

Brian Harper, surely you jest! Tax increases,soft on terrorist attacks,(1st world trade center bombing, USS Cole), Ruth Ginsberg appointed to the supreme court,an ATTEMPT to put into federal law a "hate crimes bill" that would have made the punishment much more severe for what a person(white person that is)was THINKING when a crime was commited against a minority.Not to mention a push for a socialized health care system that would not only have bankrupted the country,but would have wreacked havoc on the best health care system in the world.All these examples are the hallmark of a liberal agenda. I know most of them never got past congress. But if not for the republican takeover of congress in the midterm elections of his first term, a good many of them would be law today.
I'll be the first to admit here that my memory is not as good as it used to be as I am getting pretty old, but I have racked my brain all day and I STILL cannot recall that a "lack of a paper trail" being an issue when the liberals were in power. Ed Cone sites "computer scientists" that advocate paper trails.My question is:Where were they before George Bush was elected?

Jon,
Maybe things don't become huge public issues until there is evidence of foul play.
Why not have a paper trail? Wouldn't that ensure a much more fair election? Wouldn't it be better to have paper trails regardless if that was a nissue years ago?

Oh yea, before 9/11, how hard was Bush on terrorists? He wasn't!

The hate crimes bill didn't punish only whites! Granted more whites are ignorant racists, but it wasn't what you think it was.

A universal healthcare system that would have bankrupted the country? No more than Bush's social security reform will!

Oh yea, I thought Clinton was a horrible prez and I even voted for Bush in 2000. What was I thinking? Oh yea, I wasn't like the typical republican I was back then.

Lex,

You are correct. Voter fraud has long been a proven strategy of the Democratic party. On June 27th a federal court jury in East St. Louis convicted 5 individuals, including the Democratic Party Chairman, of conspiracy to commit vote fraud. Buying votes for $10.00 a piece folks. This is not the worlds oldest crime but it's close . One of the defendants, Kelvin Ellis, Director of Regulatory Affairs for the city, is still waiting trial on charges of attemted murder of a witness who was going to give testimony regarding a prostitution ring Ellis was alleged to be running out of the East St. Louis City Hall.

Then there was the contested 2004 Washington State Governors race. According to one carefully detailed analysis there were 3700 more votes cast in King County alone than there were registered voters. A gutless judge finally settled it with his one vote. The Democrat's final margin of victory was a mere 129. Well as Joe Stalin said , it is not who votes that counts but rather who counts those votes.

Same thing in Milwaukee where the ratio was 4600 more votes than registered voters.

And, Lex, a system designed to detect fraud is one thing but one that won't IGNORE fraud once found will be harder to put in place.

The course of history was forever changed by paper ballot box stuffing in the 1948 Democratic Senate primary runoff, when 203 votes were mysteriously found in Alice, Texas ( Jim Wells County ). 202 of these were for Lyndon Johnson and only one (1) for his opponent. Imagine that.

Like Jon said why all the concern now ? The answer is fairly obvious.

Brian, I have explained why I thought Clinton was a liberal.My Question was simply this:Why is the "paper trail"an issue now,when the republicans are winning elections? And you respond by saying "Oh,yeah,before 9/11 how hard was Bush on terrorism"? And the "hate crime bill didn't punish only whites". And then you go the usual liberal route: "More whites are ignorant racists". A healthcare bill that would have bankrupted the country "no more than Bush's social security reform will". You begin to make the case that "Bush is just as liberal as Clinton". Look, my friend, I am not George Bush's #1 fan. I think he too, is too pro government. My own personal feelings are this: I believe the federal government should have 1 job and 1 job only. That job should be to fund and run the military and to provide national security.
And my final point: Your last line,"Oh,yeah,I wasn't like the typical republican I was back then". Altough not stated, I assume you are no longer a white racist, homophobe, or ignorant redneck you were back then,right? How typical!You have seen the light,right? I could have read your response to my remarks about Clinton before I even logged on this last time.

"Why is the "paper trail"an issue now,when the republicans are winning elections?"

Jon, (which is Greek for "He who see's liberal conspirasies behind every tree": compact language that Greek.)

Could it be that this is a hot topic because these machines are only recently being widely used? Could it be that they weren't widely used in the '90s and therefore weren't controversial?

It's just a thought.

Ok, I will give my own opponion as to why I think the "paper trail" issue is being touted today. I think it is the fringe leftists' last hope of providing SOME king of orientation to their world which has been turned upside down by the republican victories at the ballot box. If they can provide a law which requires a paper trail,then they can sit back and pat themselves on the back and say "OK, now,wait till NEXT ELECTION! THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO STEAL THAT ONE!
As for the coment that the election was so close: The last time I looked at a Red/Blue map,it was almost all red. I'd say that Bush won quiet handily. The major liberal areas on the west coast and the northeast were all that
Kerry carried.These locales were so pro Kerry and so liberal that they made the final talley look closer, but if you look at the heartland of the country,Bush won by a landslide.
Oh,one more thing and I will retire for the night: Thanks Brian for the comparison liking Bush to Clinton. These blogs had me all stressed out and I needed a good laugh before bed.

It's a damn shame that some want to make this a partisan issue.

I think that would be John Kerry and John Edwards that made it a partisan issue. Anything to try to explain why they lost.

My gosh, Lex, were you wearing your tinfoil beanie and watching for black helicopters when you wrote that?