FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W270308978> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W270308978 abstract "INTRODUCTION Problems with existing voting technology were recognized long ago. It was known that machines failed, that recounts (where possible) almost always gave different numbers, that invalid ballots were common, and that people with various disabilities could not vote without assistance. Mechanical lever machines, once very popular, pose difficulties even for people who are merely short! Nevertheless, not until the too-close-to-call presidential election of 2000 did those voting problems really gain national public attention. Since November of 2000, every newspaper in the nation must have carried at least ten articles about voting. The Washington Post alone has carried at least 300 [1]. Politicians at national, state, and local levels, ever eager to propose solutions before understanding the problems, introduced more than a thousand voting-related bills before May of 2001 [2]. As early as a month after the election, at least three bills already had been introduced in Congress [3]; a month later the number exceeded a dozen [4]. The major voting-related bill that actually became law is the so-called Help America Vote Act, usually referred to as HAVA [5]. One of the features of HAVA is a requirement that polling places have at least one handicapped-accessible voting machine by the 2006 November elections. The definition of accessible is vague, but seems to imply that at least people in wheelchairs and blind people should be able to vote unassisted. Accessible voting machines are available from many sources, but tend to be appreciably more expensive than ordinary voting machines. Since many state and county governments are facing budget crises, the legal requirement to upgrade voting technology seems to require painful decisions. TRADEOFFS AND CONTROVERSY Changes of almost any type generate resistance. Simple inertia can be a significant, if unstated, factor; however, reasons given for resisting voting technology changes include cost, accuracy, security, uncertainty, and even accessibility. Cost is a major factor. If voting officials believe that current technology works well enough (and many do), why should they invest in something new? A change typically requires not only a major capital investment, but retraining of all involved, including the voters. For a quick and dirty estimate of costs, consider that Georgia, with a total population somewhat over eight million, spent fifty million dollars to upgrade the entire state to a common voting technology, or roughly $6 per resident [6]. Maryland is paying even more per resident for their upgrade. Accuracy was perhaps the original key issue demanding change. The hanging chads in Florida were only part of it. Optical scanners had their own problems as some people did anything but follow the directions for marking their choices [7]. Surely, people thought, modern computerized systems would be more accurate. Then a Caltech/MIT group analyzed voting results and concluded that the electronic machines were no better than the notorious punch-card systems [8]. Other situations casting doubt on electronic system accuracy included races in which the results were quite surprising or even patently unbelievable [9]. Now many people are concerned that the electronic systems may be less accurate than older methods. Security/trustworthiness is perhaps the most critical voting system issue at the moment. Major voting system manufacturers have had the means (proprietary voting machines used throughout a county or state), the motive (strong connections with specific candidates or parties [10]) and the opportunity (secret software, modified at the last minute [11]) to affect the outcome of elections. This does not necessarily mean that they have done it, or will do it; however, the possibility raises grave concerns. Dozens, perhaps hundreds of web sites and their backers articulate these concerns, document the suspicious facts, and/or push for a solution in the form of a voter-verified paper trail. …" @default.
• W270308978 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W270308978 creator A5088180705 @default.
• W270308978 date "2004-12-01" @default.
• W270308978 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W270308978 title "A New Way to Vote: Accessible, Affordable, Available" @default.
• W270308978 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W270308978 type Work @default.
• W270308978 sameAs 270308978 @default.
• W270308978 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W270308978 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W270308978 hasAuthorship W270308978A5088180705 @default.
• W270308978 hasConcept C102483414 @default.
• W270308978 hasConcept C108827166 @default.
• W270308978 hasConcept C11027740 @default.
• W270308978 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W270308978 hasConcept C117763746 @default.
• W270308978 hasConcept C143838007 @default.
• W270308978 hasConcept C156160270 @default.
• W270308978 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W270308978 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W270308978 hasConcept C201280247 @default.
• W270308978 hasConcept C204854418 @default.
• W270308978 hasConcept C20871130 @default.
• W270308978 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W270308978 hasConcept C48226144 @default.
• W270308978 hasConcept C520049643 @default.
• W270308978 hasConcept C60454596 @default.
• W270308978 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W270308978 hasConceptScore W270308978C102483414 @default.
• W270308978 hasConceptScore W270308978C108827166 @default.
• W270308978 hasConceptScore W270308978C11027740 @default.
• W270308978 hasConceptScore W270308978C111919701 @default.
• W270308978 hasConceptScore W270308978C117763746 @default.
• W270308978 hasConceptScore W270308978C143838007 @default.
• W270308978 hasConceptScore W270308978C156160270 @default.
• W270308978 hasConceptScore W270308978C17744445 @default.
• W270308978 hasConceptScore W270308978C199539241 @default.
• W270308978 hasConceptScore W270308978C201280247 @default.
• W270308978 hasConceptScore W270308978C204854418 @default.
• W270308978 hasConceptScore W270308978C20871130 @default.
• W270308978 hasConceptScore W270308978C41008148 @default.
• W270308978 hasConceptScore W270308978C48226144 @default.
• W270308978 hasConceptScore W270308978C520049643 @default.
• W270308978 hasConceptScore W270308978C60454596 @default.
• W270308978 hasConceptScore W270308978C94625758 @default.
• W270308978 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W270308978 hasLocation W2703089781 @default.
• W270308978 hasOpenAccess W270308978 @default.
• W270308978 hasPrimaryLocation W2703089781 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W1024694544 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W177856771 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W2006309242 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W2011119696 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W2012123999 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W2024932253 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W2041857336 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W2043689388 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W2052187381 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W2093132719 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W2108004364 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W2288314783 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W2316442480 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W232086266 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W2325511452 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W2342699229 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W2736226901 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W348832691 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W210549473 @default.
• W270308978 hasRelatedWork W2607322734 @default.
• W270308978 hasVolume "10" @default.
• W270308978 isParatext "false" @default.
• W270308978 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W270308978 magId "270308978" @default.
• W270308978 workType "article" @default.