It isn't a simple as just print a receipt. If you print before the
voter presses the final button and the voter changes their mind, the
receipt and the machine do not agree. If you print a second receipt then
you have two receipts for one voter. If the receipt and the machine
disagree and the voter presses the final button anyway, which one is the
true vote?

There is no way to count the receipts by hand so now you need a entire
new set of machines to count receipts which brings you back to many of
the problems with punch cards.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message news_Psf.48165

I agree with you. Further, the percentage of sampled machines should
not
be "small", as in 1 or 2%, but significant, as in at least one machine
from each precinct. The paper proofs should be printed at the same
time,
with the voter inspecting both for accuracy, and then give one copy to
the
registrar (or designated official). That copy would be used to verify
the
electronic tally. The question becomes, what to do if there is a
discrepancy?

It really angers me that such basic and simple methodology is not even
being discussed, much less that Diebold is pawning off an approach
that is
completely unverifiable, and that politicians are buying into it.

Neil