“California Court Voids Electronic Vote.” New Scientist 195.1613 (2007): 25, CQ Researcher. Web 13 July 2012.
This is a report on a decision by a California superior court justice that could be very important as a precedent setting decision. The court justice called for a recount on a vote on medical marijuana. The difference between yes and no votes was only 191 votes with the most votes going against allowing medical marijuana. The court justice called for the revote to be done during the next general election because the data had already been erased from the voting machines.
This article is very short but the information is very important. The author is not given but New Scientist has a reliable reputation. The author is give a straight report to the readers of how a court justice handled a situation in which a recount was felt to be necessary. I do not see any bias in the report.
Electronic Voting Systems. Society. Politics. Open Directory. 30 May 2011. Web. 10 July 2012. http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Politics/Campaigns_and_Elections/Electronic_Democracy
This site is full of weblinks to sites that can explain about all the different types of electronic voting not only in the United States but also in other countries. The links lead to voting primers, too. Most of the links are about different types of methods of voting with the electronic machines. The pros and cons are listed for the different types.
This website is organized by the public. For that reason when checking out the information on the links I think it is a good idea to judge each weblink on its own merits. As I looked through many of the weblinks I could not find a particular political bias. The emphasis seems to be on what is best for a healthy democracy.
Gumbel, Andrew. Steal This Vote: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of Democracy in America. New York: Nation Books. 2005 Print.
This book tells the history of voting in the U.S. For problems in recent elections with voting machines the author blames election officials of both parties they want to give the appearance of being up-to-date on elections technology or to give businesses to companies that have helped the get their positions. He explains how election manipulation can be done even with the most sophisticated technology available.
The author has won a Project Censored award. He is highly regarded for his journalistic research about electronic voting and the history of voting in the U.S. This book is important for everyone to read who is a citizen and has the right to vote. It is good to know the history of voting since the beginning of the nation so we can understand if we have made any progress or not. I have not read the whole book but I think it would help a person learn the right questions to ask about how elections are carried out in their local communities.
Lindley, David. “US Election: Ghosts in the machine.” Nature, 455.7217, (2008): 1171-1174, Expanded Academic ASAP. Web. 13 July 2012.
Lindley points out some important problems that came up when using the direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines in Ohio in May 2006 during the primary elections. He reports that two computer scientists, Avi Rubin and Dan Wallach, recommended that the DRE voting machines give each voter a paper receipt to show how their vote had been placed. In Ohio there were supposed to be paper receipts but it turns out that not all of the receipts were useful or were even printed out.
Nature is a highly respected scientific journal. The articles in it are peer reviewed so they are very reliable. This is an especially good source because articles share the research and opinions of computer scientists and other experts.
Mark Thompson, et al. “Can This Machine Be TRUSTED?” (Cover Story). Time 168.19 (2006): 38-40. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 July 2012.
This article discusses the mistrust people have about voting machines. The author points out that voting has never been perfect and the system just needs to be made more reliable and human error has to be kept to the minimum. The article talks about mistakes voters make, hacking problems and running early tests to build voter confidence.
Time magazine is popular for its news stories and for celebrity stories. Each author should probably be judged on their own merit. The authors on for this story covered a lot of ground. The report seems balanced and does not show bias.
Roberts, Sam. "Study Says Thousands Erred Using New Voting Machines." New York Times 06 Dec. 2011: 23. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 10 July 2012.
A study determined that about 60,000 votes for state government from black and Latino neighborhoods were not counted in the New York state elections of 2010. All of the disqualified votes were from the electronic voting machines; none of them were from old-fashioned mechanical voting machines with the lever. The Brennan Center for Justice at NY Law School carried out the research. They blamed software problems with the electronic voting machines that used optical scanning and poor instructions on use to the voters.
I think this study is very famous because its results are trusted even though they are very disturbing. There did not seem to be any bias by the author. It would have been easy to show bias on a story like this but the design and results of the study were reported as facts. If a person wants to believe that electronic voting machines are infallible they might think it was a biased report. The comparison between the modern machines and the old lever machines says a lot about blindly accepting new technology just because it is the latest invention.