NOBODY VOTES UNASSISTED ON A COMPUTER   Advocates of computer voting sometimes argue that we need the computers so people who cannot see or manipulate a pen can vote unassisted.   (Never mind that many such people need assistance anyway, to find and access the polling place and the computer.)   But the absence of assistance is in fact an illusion. Nobody votes unassisted on a computer. Everyone who votes on a computer is "assisted" by anonymous programmers. Everyone who decides to trust the computer is "assisted" by the "experts" who tell the rest of us that the system is okay (probably over the objections of other "experts").   Instead of asking those with certain types of disabilities to get help voting, we are asked to accept a system to "help America vote" -- a system that forces all of us to accept "help voting" from persons unknown and unchosen by us, in a system we can't see work. Calling that a solution is true blindness.   - Mark Ortiz, candidate for congress, 8th district. See Mark's website  Also hear Mark's radio interview  about Black Box Voting on the Dave Emory show:      No one votes unassisted on a computer. Everyone who votes on a computer is assisted by anonymous programmers."   - Ellen Theisen www.votersunite.org   All computer voting violates a central principle of inclusiveness and democracy   All computer voting violates a central principle of inclusiveness and democracy: the voting and vote-counting process must be transparent and verifiable to all citizens, or the largest number practicable.   Much is made of the alleged advantages of the computer systems for people with disabilities, particularly those who cannot see or manipulate a pen. For some reason, inclusiveness trumps everything else here, even though it is obvious that most people who can't see will need assistance finding the polling place and the machine in the first place; that most touch-screens do not have raised buttons, and cannot have raised buttons; that paper ballots could be generated in Braille. For some reason, we are to bend over backwards to accommodate voters who can't see or hold a pen, in a country where half the people don't vote anyway, mainly because they (quite rightly) believe the whole system is crooked in various ways.   Yet when it comes to verification of the validity of the count, many of the same people who say it's a violation of inclusiveness to require a blind person to vote with another person's assistance suddenly see no violation of inclusiveness in asking practically everybody to trust IT experts. This is double-think.   If we keep pushing for "good" computers, here's what we'll get: endless disputes among the experts about what systems are good enough; endless introductions of new equipment, with arguments every step of the way; corruption of the spot-checks of the paper backup ballots, and endless arguments about whether that has occurred; endless worries about whether the system that supposedly couldn't be hacked yesterday can be hacked today; a fully justified loss of confidence by the public, because even if the count is accurate, they can't tell.   Not only is observed manual counting the only method verifiable by most people, it is also the only allegedly verifiable voting technology that will be physically available nationwide in time for the 2004 election.   I am not opposed to "verified" computer voting because I am too hard-headed to compromise. I'm against it because it's a bottomless can of worms, and a solution to a largely non-existent problem. I will continue to hold out for observed manual counting of paper ballots, and I will not waste my time and effort on anything else.   - Mark Ortiz, candidate for congress, 8th district.  http://www.markortizforcongress.org/