The California based Election Science Institute recently conducted a study of Cuyahoga County's failed primary election and questioned the reliability of the Diebold systems used in that election and will be used by more than half of Ohio's voters in 46 counties on November 7.

Mark Radke, spokesman for Diebold, after reviewing the study and correcting what he referred to as "easily recognizable errors," stated that, "We feel we have proven our system to be extremely accurate."

One then reads in the September issue of Forbes Magazine an article by Aviel Rubin, computer science professor from Johns Hopkins University, and outspoken expert on computerized voting, who says, "Get ready for cheating chips and doctored drives."

Several states that are trying to introduce electronic voting machines to their electoral process are being challenged in the courts.

Per USA Today:

We've already seen difficulties with state primaries held in March in Texas and Illinois, and more and more counties are discounting the use of electronic ballots as unreliable and unsafe.

What's it going to take for officials everywhere to realize that a voter-verifiable paper ballot is the only good solution?

Over and over, journalists ask voters about their experiences using a touchscreen voting machine, and the answer they report is a variation of, "It was easy to use." We agree that voting machines should be easy to use. But the touchscreen machines' reputation for being easy is not all that it seems.

For example, we have an eyewitness account that in at least one Pennsylvania precinct last Tuesday, poll workers stood side-by-side with voters and helped them cast their votes on the new machines. [Privacy concerns, anyone?] Another report from voting machine watchdog John Gideon, editor of the Daily Voting News, mentions that tall people often have difficulty voting on DREs because the machines are calibrated by someone much shorter.