Letter to the editor: Paper vs. electronic voting | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Paper vs. electronic voting

The article “Commission recommends Pennsylvania security measures for elections” (Jan. 29, TribLIVE) references David Hickton’s concern for Pennsylvania voting machines possibly being hacked, although they’ve found no evidence of hacking. Have they even tried to hack into one of the currently used machines?

That made me think that I’ve seen this argument before. Where was it? Oh yes, here it is, on the editorial page of the Oct. 10, 1999, Orlando Sentinel: “The great state of Florida, under our great county judges of elections, who collectively approved the greatest punch-ballot designs in history, will forever continue to require future elections to ‘be conducted with human-readable paper ballots.’ This process will begin with the great Presidential election to be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2000.”

So where were the Blue Ribbon Commissions in 2002 or so, when paper ballots were being scrapped, and the tidal wave of electronic voting methods overflowed the land? Did they ever ask, “What could possibly go wrong”?

It’s good to see that politicians and attorneys have learned a few things in the last 17 years and can now see that paper is the way to go. Even though we wasted $125 million on those darn ol’ non-paper machines.

What idiots required those electronic voting machines years ago? And what idiots are now requiring that we go back to paper? If you guessed lawyers and politicians, punch your ballot here > . What could possibly go wrong?

Boy, I sure am glad Hickton hasn’t yet started his campaign for electronic toilet paper. Ouch!

Don Carrera

Penn Township, Westmoreland County

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.