oh, dear.

[sisyphusshrugged]

Shorter Anne Applebaum: I'm not very clear about the risks of electronic financial transactions. I extrapolate from this that anyone who wants a verifiable election is mentally ill.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Here's what I sent Anne:

I'm probably not the first to point this out to you, but there are simple explanations for any "paranoia" regarding e-voting, as compared to ATMs and online purchases. There are three distinct and powerful reasons for the difference.

First, ATM and online shopping transactions *do* provide a permanent record, either immediately or within a month. In fact, they are required to do so by law.

Second, ATM and online shopping transactions are individual, not aggregated. I always know what happened because it happened to me alone.

Third, ATM and online shopping transactions exist in a competitive environment that motivate the banks and credit card companies to play by the strictest rules. If I don't believe that my vote was counted, I'd have to sue or move.

There, that wasn't hard, was it?

[(Anonymous)]

And my letter:

Ms. Applebaum,

I just read your column about electronic voting as compared to financial transactions. You left seem to have not considered the one, most important, difference between the two: secrecy.

A vote is supposed to be secret. There is not supposed to be any record that any given person cast any given vote (save in the cases of mail ballots, a la Oregon, or absentee ballots). Financial transactions are completely different. It is very much in the interest of the bank, credit card company or store to make sure that the connection between the transaction and the person making it is correct.

Secrecy makes electronic voting a much more difficult problem. It is fairly easy to make sure that the financial transactions are correct. There's a long history of how to account for them. Departments of major universities are devoted to teaching people these accounting techniques.

But electronic voting and its secrecy is a new issue. There are many academic papers available about the pros and cons of different schemes. Many are available on the Internet. Although you are quick to diss the Internet in your column, a little research on the issue might have made sense before you wrote your column.

Sincerely,
[pfc]

[del-c.livejournal.com]

I met a man who believes the U.S. financial system is an elaborate hoax perpetrated by the Federal Reserve. I laughed him off -- but when I retire and find my bank account empty, I probably won't think it's so funny

No, dear, but when you retire with a fat profit and someone you don't know finds her bank account empty, you'll no doubt be in stitches. That person was probably delusional anyway.

Actually, though, she gives me an idea. Elections must cost a fair amount of money per voter, so why not throw some good money after the bad, and send everyone whose vote was counted in the presidential elections a $300 dollar tax rebate check? That's only $10,000,000,000 a year on average, and "it's your money" anyway.

I bet the voters'll kick up a stink when their votes aren't counted then!