The reason not to use Computerized Voting
This is old news, but in case you missed it, huge security flaws have been found in the new computerized voting systems.

In my humble opinion, which I will subject you to because you are reading my site, computerized methods of voting isn't an option that's too dangerous to warrant exploring, nor do we need any computerized method of voting in the first place. Here in Rhode Island, we have the best method of voting I have even seen: we're given a paper ballot and a marker, and we connect the arrows next to the candidate we want to vote for. After we're done voting, we put the ballot into a machine. If we have filled out our ballot incorrectly, we know immediately, that ballot is destroyed, we get a lesson on how to vote properly and turn in the proper ballot to be counted.

Having a paper ballot is important because they can be subjected to a recount. They are tangible, you can hold them an store them and recount them as many times as you want.

With computerized voting, none of those things are possible, and that's dangerous to democracy. If we cannot have votes in contested elections recounted by different, independent parties, then how can we truly say that we have a democracy? This is especially important since Diebold, the company contracted to make the new computerized voting machines, refuses to make the source code open to the public so that anyone (who is programming savvy) can check it. This action is wholly undemocratic: we, the people who elect our own government, should have full access to the code that runs computerized voting machines to make sure that there are no backdoors, secuirty risks, or any votes already tallied in the system.

Unfortunately, this is the government's appalling answer to the Florida fiasco. Our undemocratically selected president wants to usher in a new, undemocratic system of voting. Just business as usual for the old boys network.