Computer Voting and Security

In your Dec. 23 editorial (“No ‘Florida’ Here”) you write, “But the computer retains a record of each vote cast.” As someone who works in the field of computer security, this gives me no assurance. I have no way of knowing that the record retained correctly reflects what I confirm on the touch screen, other than “trust” in the programmer. We all know programmers never make mistakes. (Have you used Word lately?) A better solution would be to have the system print a machine- and human-readable record of the vote and a receipt for the vote, with the printed record going into the ballot box for counting purposes. This allows the voter to visually verify that the vote is correct (which is also possible with the current Votomatic systems).

An additional concern is how the system prevents voting twice, for it raises the specter of the system recording who voted for what. It is far better for the precinct officials to ensure that a person only votes once (perhaps by having him or her insert the ballot that is printed by the computer) than to run the risk of losing voting anonymity.

DANIEL FAIGIN

North Hills

* Rather than spend the millions of dollars on new voting machines mentioned in your editorial, why not use the thousands of machines that are already in use in every community and that routinely record, collate and count millions of people’s choices statewide, 365 days a year: the state Super Lotto machines. With some relatively simple, special software installed in the mainframe computer, these machines could verify, record and count the voters’ choices with complete accuracy once every four years. Since many other states also have Lotto machines, the savings to taxpayers could be in the billions. I would be quite happy to accept a 10% finder’s fee of the money saved if my suggestion were to be implemented.

IAN FRASER

Los Angeles