Another valid point. I tend to think of that phrase for use in describing such right-wing constructs as you describe, but a frame is a frame is a frame.

Besides, calling something “junk science” or for “sound science” is a frighteningly effective frame that was created by Philip Morris in the 1990s to fight tobacco legislation. Be careful when using a right-wing frame.

Just a little foreshadowing for next week….

You would think, right? Yet e-voting proponents react to the idea of paper audit trails like you suggested they share needles with a junkie for fun. Read through my debate with Castro and his paper–these companies know that their products are defective, but are pushing junk science to debunk the idea of paper trails in order to cover up their own machines’ faults.

It’s ludicrous.

Surely, it’s more efficient and easier to vote electronically than to use paper systems. The problem is that the lack of a paper trail makes software mistakes or fraud much more likely.

Why not have every electronic voting machine print out the voter’s choices on a paper record? The voter could then verify the choices and drop this printed ballot into a ballot box so the results could be checked at a future date, if necessary.

It seems so simple, I must be missing something. Right? Right?