The LAT has a timely and balanced story today about touchscreen voting machines. What struck me is that the main argument in support of touchscreen tech is a strictly economic/pragmatic one:
Supporters, who include many of the state's registrars, say the new systems promise paperless elections that are cheaper to administer, faster to tally and free of the paper chads that gained infamy in the last presidential election.
But any system that is completely paperless -- particularly one where there is any Internet connection at any point in the system -- is going to be intrinsically insecure. Paper is insecure too, but much less so than magnetic tape, even. And this "faster to tally" argument only holds water with the media, who seem obsessed with the idea that the voters need to know the result before they've even voted. Who cares if it takes a few days to determine a winner? It's not like our democracy will crumble in the meantime. Of course, just by raising this question, I'm threatening our democracy.
Aside from all that, it occurs to me that the enthusiasm for paperless voting systems is just another case of the silly American penchant to adopt whatever is (a) high tech (b) fast and convenient and (c) heavily marketed. Touchscreen machines are all three.