Fix computer voting or be fixed

To the editor: Once again the subject of electronic voting has raised its ugly head. These computerized machines have been proven to be unreliable, inaccurate and hackable. During the 2006 primary elections thousands of citizens were unable to vote because of breakdowns. Some of these voters were right next door in neighboring Monroe county. The US Congress is still reviewing results from Florida’s 13th district where 18,000 undervotes were recorded in an election that was decided by 369 votes. The manufacturer is denying access to its hardware and software citing “trade secrets.” The Governor of Florida wants paper ballots that would be counted by optical scanners. These results could always be confirmed by a hand count. There have been numerous studies that have proven the vulnerability of these machines. In the Princeton study it was demonstrated that within 30 seconds a machine’s program could be substituted with a different program. More recently computer scientist, Michael Shamos, a professor at Carnegie Mellon, tested machines in Pennsylvania. He found that they had a defect described as a “misfeature” that was originally designed to let field technicians update machine software quickly. It would also permit someone with access to upload their own software in order to tamper with election results. Machines could also be pre-programmed by the vendor. The Holt amendment (HR811), in my view, does not go far enough in providing election integrity. I prefer a folded, randomly numbered ballot with matching numbered receipt for the voter. This way voting confidentiality would be preserved. Ballots would then be unfolded and counted with optical scanners, and later by hand to confirm the results. Our local officials cry about the money they have already spent on these machines. I cry because our system is flawed, and when our system is flawed, our democracy becomes flawed. Donald Minasian Milford