We're less than a week away from this year's midterm elections, and the mudslinging and bloviation are in full force. This is one of the very few downsides of living in a democracy, but I'll put up with it in order to have my voice heard, small though it may be.

One of the interesting things about this year's campaign season is the level of hysteria over the security of electronic voting machines. The manufacturers, obviously, tell us that they are safe and secure as long as reasonable physical and procedural security precautions are taken; opponents, on the other hand, are very concerned about the potential for hacking, tampering, vote fraud, and all the other nefarious things politicians tend to accuse each other of. The latest idea for ensuring the security and honesty of the electronic machines is to have them print a paper record of each person's vote.

I think all this discussion is healthy, but fundamentally stupid.

First of all, let's face the fact that there is likely no form of balloting that can't be rigged somehow. To me, the only issue is this: which type of balloting best combines accuracy, security, and ease of use? And to me, the answer is simple: the good, old, time-tested, paper ballot that the voter actually fills in with indelible ink.

The advantages of the paper ballot are clear: each voter can be issued one ballot as he signs in, making it difficult to vote twice. The ballot has all the candidates and issues clearly printed with a big, empty box next to each choice, making it difficult to misinterpret or mark erroneously. The voter uses a Sharpie or similar indelible ink pen to fill in the right blocks (or to write in his alternative choice). The ballot is easy to count, either by hand or by optical scanning. And if - in spite of our best efforts to design an idiot-proof ballot - the voter makes a mistake, he can exchange the ballot for a blank one and the spoiled ballot can be destroyed on the spot under the eagle eyes of the election monitors using a common shredder. A paper ballot doesn't need power to be operated, won't lose its memory, and can't be hacked.

There are, of course, disadvantages. Crooked poll workers can always obtain extra blank ballots, mark them as desired, and insert them into the hopper. But good ballot accounting can, in my view, prevent this. If the results show that more ballots have been cast than there are registered voters who were issued ballots, the excess number is simply divided in half, with half of the excess deleted from the count for each party. Ballots, especially absentee ballots, can be lost or misplaced. But again, good planning, accounting, and poll security can minimize the chance of this happening.

On the whole, I believe that the basic paper ballot, combined with sound planning, thorough training of poll workers, good accounting procedures, continuous oversight, and good security, is the best option for ensuring an election as free of fraud and criminality as we can make it.

But I do have to say that the electronic voting machines have one advantage: because you only need one finger to cast your vote, they leave you with a hand free to hold your nose to protect yourself from the stench of poisonous partisan politics.

No matter how you vote, paper or electronic, be sure to turn out on November 7th. Voting is your most fundamental civic responsibility, and if you don't vote, you have no right to criticize the actions of your government.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo