Select your localized edition:

Close ×

More Ways to Connect

Discover one of our 28 local entrepreneurial communities »

Be the first to know as we launch in new countries and markets around the globe.

Interested in bringing MIT Technology Review to your local market?

MIT Technology ReviewMIT Technology Review - logo


Unsupported browser: Your browser does not meet modern web standards. See how it scores »

{ action.text }

Diebold Election Systems and the other makers of electronic voting machines are teaming up to radically improve the security of direct entry digital voting machine, according to this article in the Washington Post.

But they don’t want to put printers in the machines, because that would add $500 per machine.

Personally, I don’t think that printers are needed. After all, we already have a Supreme Court opinion that says, essentially, “in the event of a recount, there isn’t enough time to actually recount all of the ballots, so just give the election to the team with the most lawyers.”

(For more on the debate about the merits of computerized voting machines, you can read a column I wrote in September, which prompted this rebuttal from Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.)

0 comments about this story. Start the discussion »

Reprints and Permissions | Send feedback to the editor

From the Archives


Introducing MIT Technology Review Insider.

Already a Magazine subscriber?

You're automatically an Insider. It's easy to activate or upgrade your account.

Activate Your Account

Become an Insider

It's the new way to subscribe. Get even more of the tech news, research, and discoveries you crave.

Sign Up

Learn More

Find out why MIT Technology Review Insider is for you and explore your options.

Show Me