Paper receipts would help assure a fair vote and count

No method of conducting elections is going to be perfect, but the state has an obligation to adopt a system that best protects the sanctity of the vote.
Given the technology available today, that system must be a combination of computerized -- most likely touch-screen -- voting with a printed out receipt.
The entirely computerized system that is not subject to tampering or failure of its components has not yet been invented.
A paper record is necessary to provide a method of conducting a physical recount and to provide all voters with physical proof that their votes count.
The question is not whether the state can provide a combination system, the question revolves around the cost. And while cost is certainly an important factor to be considered when tax dollars are involved, the need for accountability outweighs the desire to economize.
Cost estimates
Some estimates place the cost of adding a voter-verified audit trail to the electronic systems being shopped around Ohio at 25 percent. If vendors hold to a number that high, it may be necessary for the state to look at more primitive, less expensive alternatives.
What appears to be the best combination to record and tabulate votes would combine touch-screen machines with a printed receipt that voters could see before their votes were recorded. The receipt would be placed in a locked box, and could be used in a hand recount to validate the electronic tally if that became necessary.
However, if the cost of that technology were to become prohibitive, an alternative would be to go to ballots that would be marked by pencil, but tabulated by computer. That would be something of a step backward, but it would provide the speed of a computer count with the sense of security that comes from a voter being able to see and touch his or her ballot. It would also minimize the problem of hanging chads that resulted in the outcome of the 2000 presidential election being challenged up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Concerns raised
Some of the resistance to paper ballots has come from the League of Women Voters. A spokesman said paper receipts would disenfranchise people with visual or language barriers, including the illiterate or non-English speaking. The Associated Press reported that Barbara Pierce, president of the Federation of the Blind of Ohio, said the blind had been promised they would at last be able to vote without help on electronic machines, an advance that could be undermined by paper-receipt requirements.
The validity of complaints by various constituencies as to how friendly paper receipts might be to them is worthy of debate, but those complaints are secondary to the need for a system that the vast majority of voters can trust.