I could have programmed a voting machine on a Commodore 64 in 1984 when I was twelve that is more reliable than Diebold... WITH A PAPER TRAIL. What's the problem?
The problem is not the programming, and it's not the people doing the programming, and it's not the company developing the system and programming. There are probably many millions of programmers who can do a good job of programming a fairly secure voting system. And there are no doubt many companies that can do a very good job of securing the systems and the programming involved with those systems.
The problem, in a lot of cases is with the people who are expected to use those systems to do their voting. No matter how simple the voting process is made, there will always be those for whom the system is complicated, or who are fearful of the new technology or who will believe that their vote won't be counted correctly or fairly, even if there is a paper trail.
And then there is the political side. The biggest problems in the last few elections that were contested is that, the politicians and special interest groups didn't like the results and so, they sued or wanted recounts. Al Gore sued in 2000, and he wanted recounts. He wasn't going to be satisfied with the results until the recounts showed him on top. The same kind of thing happened in Washington State with the election for governor where a republican had won initially, and the recounts only stopped when the incumbent governor, a democrat, ended on top. The same thing happened just this past year with the election for senator in Minnesota where the incumbent, again a republican, had won, and then, the recounts were demanded and they only stopped when the democrat ended on top. And it happened again in New York just a few months ago where the republican seemed to be winning, but the democrats insisted that recounts were needed. Again, the recounts ended when the democrat was on top. See a pattern?
Most of the complaints and recount requests came mostly from the democratic side. Thus, according to them, no election is fair or legitimate until the democrat either wins initially or wins through a recount. Now, in the last general election cycle, the democrats won control of the house and the senate and the presidency. There were a lot of close elections for congressmen and senators during the 2008 election where the democrats won by very narrow margins. It it had been the republicans who had won with narrow margins, then we'd still be recounting a lot of those ballots. Are you still not seeing a pattern?
When it comes to Diebold, nobody has ever proven any insidious programming or problems with the machines. Yet, Diebold was demonized and they became the villain until the democrats finally won their majorities. But, again, no misconduct or wrongdoing was ever proven. This last time around, the democrats didn't have any complaints against Diebold. Wonder why.
Like the secretary of state in the video above stated, an election will be deemed fair and legitimate when the people and politicians start to believe that the process is acceptable to all. But, that's never gonna happen. There will always be those that, even with 100% proof to the contrary, will call the process unfair and illegitimate if they didn't get their desired results from an election.
So, buddy, your understanding of the problem and your over-simplification of what's needed is apparently coming from someone who is not fully aware of the real problems with the voting systems and the real problems that will be encountered when politicians and the people are not satisfied with the outcomes of elections. Study up and start thinking.
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
