[LINK] Re: blind faith in electronic voting

[Stewart Fist]

Howard writes
>The other problem with assisted voting is: how does the party know that
> the assistant has marked the ballot in the manner that the voter
> required;

Which, is, of course, the exact problem that worries us about electronic
voting.

> Braille ballot papers is one method, but not all vision impaired voters
> have learned or can learn Braille,

One reason why they haven't is that most of them haven't needed to.

In a past life I was an optometrist.  And what often passes as "visual
impairment" or even "legal blindness" is not the TOTAL inability to see, but
some sort of reduction in perception below the threshold needed to, say,
drive a car, or read a newspaper without difficulty.

The vast majority can read the headlines on a newspaper, and most can read
large letters with a magnifier.

These categories of so-called 'blindness' are generally misunderstood by the
public.


I remember having a taxi driver patient who was legally blind  -- and
another who had tunnel vision.  He could pass all the reading and driving
tests, but had no peripheral vision wider than what you'd normally see on a
computer screen at arms length.

You wouldn't want to be a passenger in his cab.



I would think Baille ballot papers would be easier to produce and handle
than any electronic voting system.  I think this is a Trojan Horse, trying
to get these machines into the system on a pretext of social benefit.
There's a lot of money in flogging this stuff.


I also wouldn't take too much notice of the Electoral Commission's opinion.
What government department doesn't want to have the latest in electronic
toys?


The old adage "If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it" seems very apt here.