The New York Times has a Diebold love piece about voting machines. It's well written enough, explaining various concerns with the technology in clear language. But every concern is answered as if it's not a problem, and in the end even I was wondering why Computer Geek Lunatics were harassing Poor Diebold. My favourite bit, the last sentence:
Critics say they can only hope that the problems will not be severe enough to require recounts, since paper ballots will not exist.Why the #$($*#*$ won't paper ballots exist? The article doesn't get into that. Nor does it discuss the Diebold backdoor that lets you change the votes, nor the ACM's emerging position against electronic voting. And it only briefly touches on the long sorry operational history. Still, it was nice to learn Diebold's gonna add some crypto to the communication links. Duh!
I generally like Guernsey's articles, but I think she relied too much on Diebold for this article.