Blog #6: Electronic Voting

1. First of all, the company illegally modified the machines without government permission and they did not even have the manpower necessary to guarantee no breaches to the security of the systems. When it comes to the Diebold voting machines people just cannot trust the company that is known for ATM machines. Basically they are experts in people-friendly technology which does not work out so well when educated people who intend on altering election results can easily modify the machines. Also, as seen in the video, if someone knows how to pick a lock and install "malicious software" there is not much security in the way of them doing so.

2. If I was in charge of monitoring the elections in California I would eliminate the entire electronic component of the voting process. Having voters report to various polls around the country, through some process of selection, they would each receive a paper (or some green alternative) voting ballet. On the ballet they would fill out their information including social security number as well as imprint their finger prints on the document for complete legitimacy. (Many would no doubt object to the finger printing process, however such a measure would ensure the validity of their identity and their vote in the process). With all of the prior information available on the documents people would continue through and personally write in their choice as well as placing signatures at the end of each category. Recording such a vast amount of data would take longer in the absence of computers but I believe that under the right guidance, in terms of gathering voting totals and data, that it would yield a much more effective voting process and an accountable one above all.