Fair point - many think that anything less than moving away from electronic voting and back to paper is a waste of time.
Fair point - many think that anything less than moving away from electronic voting and back to paper is a waste of time.
Fair point - many think that anything less than moving away from electronic voting and back to paper is a waste of time.
Bleh I don't like "So-and-so voted for bad thing X or against good thing Y" messages. Every bill is stuffed so full of pork that it really isn't too difficult to demonize most legislators on most things they vote on. So a bill proposed allocating money for election security. Great. But a bill like this can contain any number of poison pills. Who was the money being allocated to? What guarantees do we have that security would actually be improved, or it this just throwing money at the problem and hoping it goes away? Does improving security actually require more money, or can we get better results by scrapping expensive and insecure "high-tech" options?