Voting Machines
Video introduction to ProCon.org and the pros and cons of controversial topics
Last updated on: 2/8/2013 11:24:24 AM PST

Do Electronic Voting Machines Improve the Voting Process?

What do you think? Share your pro or con views and help us foster civil, intelligent discussion on important social issues. If you're looking to attack, harass, demean, or impersonate others, please go elsewhere. Read the rules on submitting comments at ProCon.org. Please note that the pro and con comments and thumbs up/down votes reflect the views of ProCon.org readers and not necessarily of ProCon.org or society in general. Remember to enter your email address so we can notify you if your comment gets posted. Thank you!

PRO (yes) Comments (3)

1,250 characters left

Notify me by email when someone replies to my comments
Also sign up for our free e-newsletters

Sort by: Best | Newest | Oldest

  • +9 +13 -4 Steven Campbell Sep. 28, 2011
    "There is an opportunity to sort out all of the vote rigging and discrepancies by a combination of identity checking and voting intention. These machines should be made to resemble an automatic bank teller, secure, fast and checkable."
    1250 characters left
    • 0 0 0 robellecalderon Feb. 22, 2014
      "I disagree to Electronic Voting Machines especially here in out country. Vote buying is rumpant. I guess the most effective tool in elections is conscience. People can mess up and hit the wrong thing.

      Robelle Calderon"
  • +3 +9 -6 Bob Nalbach Nov. 15, 2011
    "The process is solid. I do beleive that online voting would be better but this is a good second choice."
    1250 characters left
  • -10 +1 -11 tae Sep. 14, 2012
    "yes because people aint got to do alot of stuff it makes it easyer"
    1250 characters left

CON (no) Comments (14)


1,250 characters left

Notify me by email when someone replies to my comments
Also sign up for our free e-newsletters

Sort by: Best | Newest | Oldest

  • +8 +12 -4 James Apr. 28, 2011
    "Transparency from beginning to end should be the standard and the guiding star the defines the mechanisms of any voting process. Transparency for the average literate American voter. Keeping transparency as the overarching priority eliminates virtually all electromechanical and computer based systems. It remains that paper ballots marked by the voter, counted at the precinct level on the day of the election, and followed with a zealous chain of custody is the system of voting that the average American can participate in and understand from beginning to end. Computers are esoteric with only a handful of people having any true understanding of their hard and software. Computers and software are forever contradictory to the concept of transparency. Keep it simple stupid, vote on paper and make it federal law that vote manipulation is a felony that will have you spending the rest of your life in a federal prison. Bottom line, always hold any voting system up against the transparency standard. Simple is almost always better, and in the case of the voting process it is inviolate."
    1250 characters left
  • +3 +5 -2 Chuck Nov. 14, 2012
    "There is NO accountability. Once you push the "Cast Vote" button - it's gone. A good programmer can alter the number of voters, and the number of votes for anybody that corrupt money wants to win. Granted paper ballots are also counted by electronic machines, but the paper ballots can be recounted manually if challenged. Electronic voting machines are a farce. You could walk in, close the curtain, fart silently, and accomplish just about as much. Smells, but you can't tell who did it. Don't you see a parallel analogy here? Transparency? Unfortunately 100%."
    1250 characters left
  • +3 +5 -2 Rosy Sep. 26, 2012
    "The DRE machines fail to secure the actual software that counts/tabulates the voters intent. These machines will boot off an inserted memory card (installing hacked code) then, having removed the memory card, the DRE machine will then boot the correct code completely erasing any evidence of hacked code. While preserving the 'hacked results'. These DRE machines can never be assured, especially when the application code is NOT OPEN SOURCE CODE. The software code is proprietary and cannot be assure either accurate or secure. You may press the 'A' key, but you cannot ever be assure that the machine didn't record a 'B'.

    These DRE machine were designed to be hacked and lack even basic security or open source review.

    Any recount or audit without a physical paper trail is basically a meaningless exercise."
    1250 characters left
  • +3 +9 -6 Regina Apr. 28, 2011
    "This is a very interesting site. I was extremely distressed that the folks speaking "PRO" on the issue of Electronic Voting Machine accuracy did not really answer the question. Sure, the machines can prevent "hanging chads" and such things as over-votes and under-votes, but....... they did not speak to the issue of whether or not the votes are actually recorded (and thus tabulated) as each voter intended. To me, that is truly what "accuracy" means. Would it do any good to go back to the people who responded "PRO" on the accuracy of the electronic voting machines and ask them to speak to whether or not the machines can be trusted to ACCURATELY record and count the votes? When I worked for an accountant years ago, we always created a paper trail when using the calculator. I can't imagine an accountant (especially dealing with the IRS) getting away with saying "Just trust me" without having the documentation to back up their figures."
    1250 characters left
  • +3 +7 -4 Ricky Apr. 28, 2011
    "I do not trust the electronic voting machines. I believe the individual ballots are more correct with less chance of corruption"
    1250 characters left
  • +2 +2 0 whelen Mar. 15, 2013
    "NO! especially here in philippines. vote buying is rumpant. I guess the most effective tool in elections is CONSCIENCE."
    1250 characters left
  • +2 +4 -2 robert bristow-johns Sep. 5, 2012
    "Pure electronic voting machines, where the record of the vote resides solely as a microscopic portion of electric charge in DRAM or as a magnetic bubble on a hard-disk are inherently unverifiable to the voter that his/her intended vote is recorded faithfully. We can recount this over and over again until the cows come home, but nothing will change that fact.

    The most secure method is that of optical scan ballots where the names of the candidates appear on the very same physical instrument that the voter marks. In contrast, the punch-card ballots could possibly get mis-aligned in the voting machine jig and the voter could punch the hole in the jig for Candidate A, yet the hole on the card for Candidate B is pressed.

    Optical scan ballots have a natural paper trail that can be *meaningfully* recounted either by a different machine or manually.

    DRE technology seems to be solving a problem that doesn't exist and, itself, introduces many more problems with the security of our vote. We can afford to kill a few trees to protect the integrity of our governmental elections."
    1250 characters left
  • +1 +1 0 lecardo rian Nov. 17, 2013
    "I disagree with this way of voting because there could be error on picking candidates."
    1250 characters left
  • +1 +1 0 Almarc13 Jun. 17, 2013
    "I monitored the Bush v. Gore "hanging chad" election in Ft Myers, Fl. Election officials in Collier County practiced on the new Diebold machines. But the machines were not zeroed out when they were through. The system registered 50 votes when the polls just opened. Now way to tell for which candidate or to correct the count. Fifty votes was greater than the difference between Bush and Gore when the US Supreme Court stopped the vote count and appointed Bush President. Paper ballots filled out by the individual voters is the only accurate way for voting and providing evidence for a recount. Also, when large numbers of voters are waiting to vote, 100 voters using paper ballots can vote in the same time that it takes machine voters to cast their ballots because the paper users are all working at the same time while the machine users are waiting in line one after another to get to a machine. (Yes, I timed it.)

    Election officials are appointed by partisan politicians, and they are not neutral. Honest elections require very close monitoring by highly motivated representatives of each candidate. The massive sums spent on elections in the US provide large incentives to cheat.

    Almarc13"
    1250 characters left
  • +1 +1 0 Mark Meyer Feb. 10, 2013
    "Anyone with even a modest knowledge of information systems will understand how easily and such system can be compromised and abused for nefarious means. Selection of our elected leaders should not hinge on reliance on any system open to such easy fraud that may be difficult or impossible to detect. Using a paper ballot with an electronic reader, such as is already done in many states, is a best compromise method. It is accurate, can be manually audited, and is relatively inexpensive as only one or two readers is needed per voting precinct."
    1250 characters left
  • +1 +3 -2 SSonral Aug. 6, 2012
    "Who owns the machines and controls the read outs?"
    1250 characters left
  • +1 +5 -4 Steven Campbell Sep. 28, 2011
    "At the moment I fewel these machines for voting are too insecure, are open to manipulation and fraud and should be scraped for upgrade. Many of the people who I spoke to regard the machines as already rigged to favour the incumbents."
    1250 characters left
  • +1 +6 -5 Mary Aug. 20, 2011
    "The right to representation through voting is one of the most basic principles of democracy. It is too important to outsource to corporations with no verifiability. Without trust that comes from transparency and accountability, the very legitimacy of our leaders will be in question."
    1250 characters left
  • 0 +3 -3 Sariah Feb. 23, 2012
    "People can mess up and hit the wrong thing."
    1250 characters left
Visit the ProCon.org community on:

© 2014 ProCon.org, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit     |   233 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200, Santa Monica, CA 90401    |    Tel: 310-451-9596   




Hide/Show