The paper rolls used back then were not 2 part, so no voter verification, and they were haphazardly implemented.
Your objections do not alter or reduce the increased security and error correcting offered by such a system. Paper rolls are not hard to audit, they are instead, time consuming to audit. Initial auditing can be sped up with machine reading, and subsequently verified by human audits. The voter verification allows the roll to act as the final arbiter for any error conditions.
I appreciate your enthusiasm for this idea. It's illegal as far as i know to give voters a paper record of their vote because of the concern that it's will be used for voter coercion.
I am unfamiliar with any legislation making that illegal. Regardless, the paper record could just be used to allow voters to verify their vote, and then returned upon exiting the polling booth or station, removing any possibility of external coercion. The voting machine could have a receipt scanner, and insertion of the receipt, could be used to validate their vote.
Most of the screw-ups in the 2000 election were because voters had no means of verifying how their ballot would be tallied, allowing many mistakes to be made, such as the 'butterfly' ballots in Florida's Palm Beach county.
Paper rolls attached to voting machines were tried in the early 2000s. They are very hard to audit.
Also it's problematic to have 2 versions of the official vote because of they differ you don't know which one is correct
The paper rolls used back then were not 2 part, so no voter verification, and they were haphazardly implemented.
Your objections do not alter or reduce the increased security and error correcting offered by such a system. Paper rolls are not hard to audit, they are instead, time consuming to audit. Initial auditing can be sped up with machine reading, and subsequently verified by human audits. The voter verification allows the roll to act as the final arbiter for any error conditions.
I appreciate your enthusiasm for this idea. It's illegal as far as i know to give voters a paper record of their vote because of the concern that it's will be used for voter coercion.
I am unfamiliar with any legislation making that illegal. Regardless, the paper record could just be used to allow voters to verify their vote, and then returned upon exiting the polling booth or station, removing any possibility of external coercion. The voting machine could have a receipt scanner, and insertion of the receipt, could be used to validate their vote.
Most of the screw-ups in the 2000 election were because voters had no means of verifying how their ballot would be tallied, allowing many mistakes to be made, such as the 'butterfly' ballots in Florida's Palm Beach county.
Any more objections?