As we approach the US mid-term elections (Nov. 2006) there is increasing concern about the problems of electronic voting. Some people think that this could make the contested 2000 presidential election look orderly by comparison.

This November, 80% of voters will be casting their ballots on electronic voting machines. Many of these machines have been demonstrated to be very vulnerable to tampering. Many have no voter-verified paper trail, so there would be no way to perform reliable recounts.

By law, only 27 states require the use of voter-verified paper trails in electronic machines. 8 more states utilize, but don't require, paper trails. This leaves 15 states with no mandated requirements for safeguarding votes.

Electronic voting problems are not new, but no one is really ready for this electronic election. During the 2004 presidential election there were several isolated problems, but there were no "smoking guns" which forced any major results to be changed. Now what?

There are 4 primary manufacturers of electronic voting systems, none of which has been demonstrated to be really secure. Diebold, based in Ohio, is the most well-known and it was the Diebold CEO who boldly asserted that he "would deliver Ohio for GW Bush." Somehow, he wasn't nailed for that juvenile comment.

Now a new study with Diebold's AccuVote-TS machine found that hackers can easily modify results to disable machines and change vote totals.

A 2005 Government Accountability Office report on electronic voting confirms the worst fears of watchdog groups and election officials. Says that report, "There is evidence that some of these concerns have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes."

This is simply unacceptable. But, what have Congress and the White House done? Nothing, nada, zero, zilch. We won't get to Katrina until at least a few days after the hurricane.