Houston man refuses to vote electronically, proceeds to go home and complain on the Internet

Could we even call it election day without a completely absurd poll story?

Here's the best one the Ticket has found so far: A Houston man named Rad Rich shows up at his neighborhood polling place, expresses discontent with the philosophy of electronic voting and is told he can't log his votes without using a computer, according to the Houston Press.

Naturally, Rich's distaste for voting on computers led him to lodge a public complaint -- using a computer.

"I was told I cant vote because I refuse to use the computers so I was denied the right to vote," Rich wrote on the Hands Up Houston message board, according to the Houston Press. "I have filed a complaint."

In a follow-up with the Press, Rich said his protest wasn't due to a computer allergy but instead because he is skeptical of computer voting.

An absentee ballot would have eased his worries, but voters must swear they will be out of town on election day in order to receive a paper ballot.

We realize this story is a little ridiculous, but it raises an interesting question. With polls increasingly going digital, should election officials be required to offer a dead-tree version for the computer-phobic? Tell us what you think.

-- Mark Milian

Photo credit: Associated Press

Comments

[Tim Erickson]

Why do you assume a voter who wants a paper ballot is computer-phobic? Like the guy says: he's not allergic; he probably just wants to cast a verifiable vote. In contrast to many of your excellent offerings, this is not, as you say, a ridiculous story. Polling places in many jurisdictions are retreating from "going digital."

But to answer your question directly, I'm with Mr.Rich on this one. Paper ballots. Make them machine-readable. That way, if we need to, we can count 'em ourselves.

[dm]

The has a completely valid point. Fraud is very easy through an electronic system.

[Richard Tamm]

This story isn't "a little rediculous". What's rediculous is the ridicule you heap on someone with legitimate concerns about paperless electronic voting. We've turned over control of our most precious and sacred voting to private companies with secret computer code. And we're expected to just trust that they are being honest - as honest as our politicians? as our banksters? as who? When winning an election can be worth billions in money and power, we need more than blind trust. I have been a computer programmer for over 30 years. I don't trust these machines at all. Before them, people who wanted to steal an election had to do it "retail" - vote by vote. With electronic voting machines and a few lines of hidden code, you can now much, much more easily steal an election "wholesale" - hundreds of thousands, even millions of votes can be shifted - by a smart insider. Even Reagan said "trust, but verify". Where is the verification if there is no paper, no audits, no recounts? How many people with legitimate concerns about electronic voting are you attempting to shut up with your ridicule? Wake up and realize there are serious problems and legitimate concerns with these electronic voting machines.

[SB]

It is certainly not ridiculous, and your belitting his legitimate concern is troubling.

With the Walden O'Dells of the world promising to deliver votes by hook or crook to candidates they like, there is far too little skepticism about electronic voting in the media and population at large.

Instead of sneering at him and not listening to his concerns which clearly have nothing to do with technology -- a fact which sneaks through despite your snarky take -- it would be far more useful for a media outlet to actually, you know, *investigate* the issue. (Or is that activity reserved for your obsolete paper-based side of the operation?)

[oy1]

what's really absurd is the ruling there that...." but voters must swear they will be out of town on election day in order to receive a paper ballot".

[Dale]

No evidence is offered to substantiate the Milian's heckling that the subject is "computer-phobic". The whole piece above seems to represented a misconstrual of the person being written about. Skepticism about the reliability and security of *currently deployed* electronic voting systems were sustained front page fare in 2006 and 2008, but Milian seems oblivious to this history.

Despite having a brand new college degree in journalism, this disrespectful, apparently callow reporter does not report that he undertook to learn precisely what the subject's objections to electronic voting were.

[cheap car insurance]

According to me, Fraud can easily be commited but by manual voting, chance of fraud is very much nominal.
=============
Shawn matthews

[anneli000]

There's no reason to dismiss Mr. Rich's concerns here, after all, the 2000 elections aren't exactly ancient history to the majority of the voting public. Voting fraud is very much a live issue everywhere, and there is no reason to scoff at an American that is concerned about his or her right to vote and be counted.

[Terry]

Why is this ridiculous? Why is this story placed in "humor"? Many of us are suspicious of electronic voting. The companies who design them are frequently partisan. I am glad 100% of the comments take the opinion that the LA Times got this one wrong.

[Houston Voter]

While I support more confidence-inspiring voting mechanisms, Milian's not that far off. Trust me, if he'd had the pleasure of interacting with Rad Rich, this article would have been exactly the same.

[jan]

Liberal Morality: Don't use paper, you kill a three. But its perfectly ok and should be encouraged to kill babies up to nine months old. And post birth killings (like in China) is "sometimes necessary."

[Kin Kade]

and just like i said on hands up houston rad. you threw away your vote. Believe me if Houston votes where rigged, Annise Parker wouldn't be as far as she is in this republican stronghold. :|