um,
you're making the faulty assumption
that people
a) want actual valid elections to occur smoothly
and
b) that they're trying to make this easier to happen

this is all about control and money,
nothing more.
hell,
according to jimmy carter
the US elections
would not be certified by the UN as transparent
or even as fair and valid.

we're one of the least well run "democracies"
on the face of the planet
and we practically invented the concept
as it's understood in the modern era.

You are also assuming people plan for _anything_ever_. 20 some years ago I worked in downtown Philly. This is pre direct deposit. You might think they put more people on at the bank at lunchtime on Fridays to handle the rush. Especially on the weeks that Social Security checks were mailed. You'd be wrong.

Unfortunately, I think jhimm's post is a more accurate assessment of the situation.

jhimm - *sigh*

take heart,
unless "W" declares martial law
(under the newly loosened restrictions
that he just recently passed
in the dead of night with no press present)
on the grounds
that a democratically controlled congress
represents a threat to national security,
it looks like we've dodged a bullet
and will get 2 years
to try to convince people
to get angry enough about vote fraud
that we should just go back
to a simple piece of paper and a pen
(like RI, MA and CT all use).

jhimm - :-) Yeah, chris and I were remarking last night that we love the way MA does their voting. Pretty straightforward. Complete the arrow.

A bit late to the thread, but my opinion is that pure electronic voting will never reach my bar for transparency and auditing.

The best solution I've come across is using a computer to generate a paper ballot and receipt. The paper ballot is then scan-read and stored securely in case there needs to be a hand recount. The receipt and the ballot both have a unique number on them, which can be used for auditing. There are variations on this theme which are largely acceptable (to me) as well.

This provides me with a way to see if my ballot was counted, it lets me visually examine my ballot before casting (to make sure the computer isn't compromised), if there aren't enough machines humans can fill out ballots by hand and still vote, hand counting is possible (which is used as an audit of the scanner), and the use of computers allow multiple languges, sight-impaired voting, and so on.

The computer and scanner do not absolutely require that their code or hardware be certfied since their products are verifyable via auditing. I would prefer them to be open source (and open HW), though...

But as Jhimm points out: getting any traction on this issue will prove difficult. If not for nefarious reasons, then because the voting system is defined by the locality rather than the federal government. If the federal government put specific rules in place about auditing and transparency it'd go a long way, though.