Most of the problems and vulnerabilities with eVoting can be overcome with a printed record of votes from each machine, and regular audits of that paper trail. However, "while twenty-six states require paper records of votes, fewer than half of those require regular audits."
So, basically, only 25% of our electronic voting is subject to basic security rules. The other 75% are wide open to tampering. Not surprisingly, the voting machine industry doesn't seem to think this is a problem:
"It just isn't the piece of equipment," said David Bear, a spokesman for Diebold Election Systems, one of the country's largest vendors. "It's all the elements of an election environment that make for a secure election."While much of the backlash against un-audited eVoting has come from Democrats and the independent left (after losing two closely called and contested elections), Republicans have also begun to wake up to the potential for fraud.
Thomas M. Davis III (R - VA), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, has joined the call for new, stricter regulations on electronic voting machines. Can an election can be stolen by a handful of tech-savvy political hackers? "It's not a question of 'if,'" says Davis, "it's a question of 'when.'"
Tags: eVoting, electronic voting machines, fraud, elections, Diebold, New York University, study