"Right now, there's no feedback at all in voting," said Negroponte. "You push the button. Nothing happens. It's like when you push the elevator button and nothing happens -- you don't know if the elevator is broken or the [button] light is broken.
"It would be good to have some degree of feedback in voting. For example, you might get some feedback saying, 'you voted for x,'" he noted.
Vest and Baltimore said the new technology "should minimize the possibility of confusion about how to vote, and offer clear verification of what vote is to be recorded. It should decrease to near zero the probability of miscounting votes. The voting technology should be tamper-resistant and should minimize the prospect of manipulation and fraud."
Said Dr. Vest: "This is a project we could have tackled any time, but the truly bizarre circumstances of the recent presidential election put it on the front burner. We are also at a technological point where a solution is highly likely."
"There are times when events overtake us. This is a good time and a necessary time to be doing this," said Dr. Baltimore.
Includes material from press releases.
Can efforts to improve voting machine technology succeed? Are machines as fallible as humans? Is Herman Hollerith to blame for our latest political drama? Do you have a solution?
Tell an ITworld.com editor what you think on this issue.