The big difference with electronic voting
So far a lot of threads on the electronic voting debacle. A lot of those who voted for the monkey seem to bring up the defence that "there have always been problems" even with paper voting.
There is, however, one huge difference. Paper voting systems have traditionally been administered by civil servants, and every step of the way the process has been scrutinized by representatives of BOTH parties. If a paper ballot-counter wanted to just throw away a thousand democract or republican votes, they couldn't do it. This is not to say that problems have never occured - of course they have - but the protections againsts such problems are roughly equal.
Contrast that with a Diebold voting machine. Who scrutinizes the electronic path from touchscreen to hard disk? Who certifies that the software is working correctly, that proper procedures are in place to prevent fraud? Diebold do. And Diebold, being a corporation, will support the monkey.
This is the real difference. Not that electronic voting is more or less accurate than paper voting, but that the change from one to the other has been used to mask another change - from two-sided scrutiny to putting all the trust in a few (right-leaning) private interests. That's abominable. I don't know how anyone, of the left OR right, can think that's an acceptable way to run a democracy.
Just out of interest, what actually ARE the procedures for scrutiny and verification of these machines, if in fact there are any?