The expense of a useless paper trail that won't be used unless the programmer trying to fix the vote screws up and claims results outside the benchmark that triggers a recount, is the least of it.

If we voted at my precinct, figure a generous 5 voters per machine per hour for 11 hours, we would require a minimum of 9 machines. Each of those machines has to be purchased (how long before they're declared obsolete?), maintained by experts, and programmed for every election. Assuming we succeeded in obtaining a paper trail, what good would it be? How is it counted?

However, in Oregon, we vote by mail. Every signature is checked by trained employees against the original registration signature. It takes only 3 stand-alone optical scanners that are tested before and after every single counting run for accuracy to count not must my precinct, but the whole county.

If we used electronic voting machines, in addition to having a system that will be hacked, the cost, including programming and maintenance as well as original purchase, will be astronomical - why?

As it is, we spend $3 million less voting by mail that it would cost to open the polls. We have much higher participation than the national average. In the last four elections (primaries and generals in 2004 and 2006) there has not been a single challenge or suggestion of fraud (I believe that holds true for the entire state). The counting process is transparent and can be repeated if anyone challenges the results as it was in two very close races, one in Clackamas County and one it Multnomah county.

And lest you need to have immediate results: the first results were available in Oregon beginning less than 20 minutes after the scheduled 8:PM deadline on Tuesday.

The only people who will benefit from electronic (computer driven, programmed, black box machines) are those who would steal elections and those who want to make the machines. They may very well be the same people. There is not benefit at all to the voter. None.

Richard Yarnell,
Beavercreek, OR