D4U member gets letter printed in Deseret News on electronic voting machines

D4U member (and Democracy for Utah website administrator) Ryan Stokes got his letter published in the Deseret News today:

Vote 'no' on machines

I read your editorial (May 24) about people who want paper ballots to record votes, with probably the same sense of self-assuredness you must have felt writing it. I also feel that only ignorance or fear could produce an opinion contrary to mine on the matter of verified voting.

So to address your stated fears, I want to assure you that those opposed to this misuse of technology need not be uncomfortable with advances in technology, nervous Nellies, afraid of gremlins, older than 40, fuddy-duddies or Luddites.

The mark of education and understanding is turning the unknown into the known. Simple simulations have already shown that the voting machines we used in Utah can simply start out with more votes for one candidate than the other.

And you would demand I give my faith freely to my elected officials; I cannot have faith in elections that can start in favor of one candidate, or in which votes are discarded or invented. As far as I can see, humans are not outdated technology.

Ryan Stokes
Holladay

Ryan's letter was in response to the D-News' name-calling editorial from last Thurdsay. The full text of Ryan's letter is available below.

[Mr. Evensen, I apologize if this is addressed incorrectly, I was unable to find an address to use to respond to this Deseret News editorial on Thursday. Also, this may be a repeat as I sent the first through my home mail server which was possibly ignored by yours.]

I read your Thursday warning, about people who want paper ballots to record votes, with probably the same sense of self-assuredness you must have felt writing it. I also feel that only ignorance or fear could produce an opinion contrary to mine on the matter of verified voting.

So to address your stated fears, I wanted to assure you that those opposed to this misuse of technology need not be uncomfortable with advances in technology, nervous Nellies, afraid of gremlins, older than 40, fuddy-duddies, or Luddites, all names and labels you used in place of an argument against the reasoned demand for paper ballots. I am a software engineer in my early 30's with experience writing network security and data backup software. Using the machines we use in Utah, elections can be rigged by those who want a result in their favor. There is no hoard of nervous Nellies demanding you explain to them how it works in their terms, but informed technologically capable people who can look at it in a second and know it's faulty. How do we know?

There is no permanent verified record of the vote. Neither is this an arcane science, known only to a few. It is obvious to anyone familiar with basic IT operations, that bits can be changed easier than paper.

To address your stated ignorance, overcoming trepidation before the unknown is not the mark of education or understanding, but the mark of faith, of which you suggest we have "more". The mark of education and understanding is turning the unknown into the known. This basic oversight should have been enough for me to ignore the opinion. Simple simulations have already shown that the voting machines we used in Utah can simply start out with more votes for one candidate than the other. And you would demand I give my faith freely to my elected officials! You don't speak for my faith. I will have faith in my religious beliefs, family, and friends; and possibly extend a bit of faith to my employer, neighbors, and community leaders. I will also have some faith in the goodwill of my elected leaders, even when I disagree with them, having the assurance that it was the will of the people who elected them.

But I cannot have faith in elections that can start in favor of one candidate, or in which votes are discarded or invented. If the electronic voting machines marked the ballots for us to verify, then they would be useful. But it's the ballots we verify which should be counted. Scanners make that easy. Humans can check the work. As far as I can see, humans are not outdated technology.

Sincerely,
Ryan Stokes
Holladay