I just read a long, long piece on the Politico site about voting machines and their susceptibility to hacking and voter fraud. Actually I began to skim the article half way through and raced to the end to get to the conclusion or answer. Didn’t find it.
But something that has puzzled me for a long time is why we even have to have computer technology for voting. Why don’t we just do it the old-fashioned way, count by hand. Sure it is slower but it worked in the past. There has always been voter fraud and accusations of rigged or fixed elections — ballot box stuffing and so on. It is said Lyndon Johnson won an early congressional race by coming up with some mysterious late ballots. And some think JFK was put over the top by voter fraud in Chicago and in Texas.
But, again, I ask, why can’t we just do things the old-fashioned way? Slow, but less susceptible to fraud. The counting of the ballots could be watched by independent observers, as well as partisans on both sides. It might take a long time to get the results, but what, except curiosity, is the hurry? The new people usually don’t take office until after the first of the year.
And I’m talking both counting the ballots and even marking them by hand. Marking a ballot by hand might seem like chipping something in stone, but I recall voting in one of my first elections. My wife and I went to a local grammar school and were given rubber stamps, one with a plus (yes) and one with a minus (no). That would have been in the early 1970s. So if it worked then, not really so long ago — I mean in modern times anyway — why could it not today?
And that’s it.