Voting piece doesn’t reflect the scientific consensus
I read Michael Shamos’ prominently featured Jan. 1 Forum commentary, “Why Our Voting Systems Are Safe,” with great interest. Mr. Shamos is a fellow faculty member who has a wide range of expertise, offers interesting opinions and knows how to make a case. His arguments are very convincing to the casual or trusting reader, which compels me to write this response.
When Mr. Shamos writes about “various computer scientists” who disagree with him, one could infer that these are isolated dissenters whom we can easily ignore. In fact, the overwhelming majority of computer scientists support an audit trail based on paper, and the world’s largest educational and scientific computing society (ACM) has adopted an official policy supporting paper records. Who should you believe?
As a scientist, I respect Mr. Shamos’ arguments, but I believe an article intended for the general community and written by an expert should clearly state when the conclusions are diametrically opposed to the scientific consensus.
ROGER DANNENBERG Professor of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University
Oakland
We welcome your opinion
the machine is fake counting ballots because the candidate they have selected was not showing up on the review screen. Yes, it is their big wide fingers, or old eyes, that actually cause the confusion, but try to tell that to a paranoid Trump voter!
I believe we have a good voting system here, but we can improve it. If the electronic voting machine would print the voter’s selection, the voter would then insert the sheet of paper (no paper trail for vote for pay) into an optical reader for later tabulation and verification. The paper from the reader could be automatically collected in a locked bin for recount if needed.
We can read all we want about the sanctity of our vote. However, our Republican-leaning judicial system refusing legal recount requests on the basis that nothing has ever been found before is pure junk food for conspiracy theorists. How can anything illegal be proved if the state continues to protect the guilty? TOM TOMKINS Bethel Park
This is a thank you to PostGazette executive editor David M. Shribman, whose columns appear regularly in the Globe and Mail in Toronto.
Thank you, Mr. Shribman, for your ongoing analysis of the American political scene, during the election campaign and since. Quite apart from the current situation, I am often very puzzled by what goes on in Washington. There is debate in Canada about our system of electing governments, but it appears to be much more satisfactory than yours. At present, certainly, I am glad to live north of the border.
I hope Mr. Shribman will keep writing these columns, and I hope the Globe will continue to publish them. BRUCE COSSAR Kingston, Ontario