Comments on: Low Tech: Washington state’s caucuses are nuts

By: JP

JP — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:16:51 +0000

Bring me my pregnant chads!!!

By: Sebbi

Sebbi — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 16:06:57 +0000

I’m not from the US, but what is so difficult and slow about paper? There was not one election in our country where definite results weren’t there at least on the next if not on the same evening. Counting paper ist fast and can be checked by anyone. It is not possible to look at a voting machine and tell how (or even if) it is working … you need technician and so on …

Electronic voting is bad for every democracy. Sorry.

By: yoshi

yoshi — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 04:49:21 +0000

Depends how you define “electronic voting.” In our state we have paper ballots fed into scanners for tallying the votes. So technically its ‘electronic voting.’ The scanners also notify the voter if there was an error on the ballot allowing the voter to recheck his/her ballot. Its reliable and easy for those who run the elections to setup.

As for “electronic voting” meaning touchscreen. Its complicated (for the people setting them up and frequently the voters themselves), expensive, and offer no advantage over paper ballots. Zero. Nada. Speed and ease of collating results also mean speed and ease in election fraud. Stick with paper.

Our caucus was by simple vote. You wrote down who you wanted to put it in a box. You could then leave. What you consider “chaotic” and “analog” is democracy. Why don’t you get used to it.

By: Ben

Ben — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 04:25:13 +0000

I’m not a USAsian, so am not voting, but if it were me I’d want electronic voting for the speed and ease of collating results, bakced up by a unique but anonymously ID’d paper receipt for safety and recounts.