Published: May 05, 2008 11:01 am         

A paper ballot voters can verify is needed

I am writing to clarify my concern about our electronic voting machines. ("No way we can trust the electronic ballot machines," April 23 Times-News) It is not that our local election officials and judges are corrupt or not doing their jobs correctly. On the contrary, I trust our local officials and thank them for their service to us.

My concern is about the voting machines and the fact that computer programs written to count votes have been manipulated in the last three elections in different areas throughout our country.

The computer programs cannot be seen by election judges and are written by employees of large private corporations that have vested interests in changing election results to favor a candidate who can help them by influencing policy once in office.

Programs have been written and used in elections in this country that flip votes from one candidate to another, that do not count votes, that add in extra votes, etc.

I trust that our local election judges and officials want to ensure a fair election, but the nature of our machines makes that virtually impossible. If the vote counting program in the machine's computer has been written incorrectly (most likely by the machine's manufacturer) the election judge may have no way of knowing the votes have been counted incorrectly.

The paper trail is produced by the computer program (which could be faulty) and is never verified personally by the voter. Would you trust our election system if you went into a voting booth and told a man behind a curtain who you wanted to vote for without getting or giving verifiable evidence to protect against fraud? I hope not.

But that is essentially the system we have now. We vote but cannot physically verify that our vote was counted. The system I propose to reduce the chance of voter fraud is to have the voting machines produce a paper receipt or ballot for the voter showing all of their election choices. Once this is received and verified by the voter, he/she can then deposit their receipt in a ballot box in view of the public.

If the results are contested, the computer vote count can then be compared to the ballot count (the more accurate of the two). I see no reason why a system resembling this should not be implemented. We should not trust votes that we cannot see with our own eyes. For it is the dream of every corrupt politician, CEO or other person of power to control election results.

An interesting fact that should concern us is that since the inception of electronic voting machines nationwide, exit polls no longer predict election results as accurately as before. In other words, who voters tell polls they voted for, does not match who wins the elections the way it did when we had paper ballots.

I urge all citizens and election officials to look into the documented cases of electronic (and other forms of) voter fraud in the past eight years.

A very informative DVD titled "Uncounted" by David Ernhardt can be partially viewed on www.truvote.com and on youtube. TruVote supplies voting machines and information to help conduct more accurate and fair elections.

Lastly I would like to thank Debra A. Amyot ("Election judge outlines electronic vote safeguards," April 27 Times-News) and other election officials for contributing their time and services that allow us to practice our democratic duty. I would like to get involved in the process as she suggests, but will be leaving for the Peace Corps soon.

I have contacted the board of elections with questions and concerns and still look forward to their reply. We need to demand a paper ballot that we the voters can verify and nothing less.

Tim Meadors
Flintstone