Andrew Cringely recently asked "A Year Into the E-voting Crisis, Shouldn't We Have Noticed the Printer That's Already Built into Each Diebold Voting Machine?" Yet one of the spurious arguments against a verifiable paper audit trail is that is would cost too much to fit the printers to the e-voting machines.

Example:

"Meg Smothers of the League of Women Voters recently said that Georgia has 28,000 voting machines, and it would cost $15 million to retrofit them with printers to produce receipts. That comes to $535 per machine. "

I see. So we must employ computing in elections because computers are magic and they cost a lot, so they must be good. But we can't spend enough to make them actually work because it would cost too much. And it would cost too much because computers are pricey, so obviously if we want them to do anything extra (like print) that will cost a lot. And we are too stupid to realise that the computer will already do that extra thing we want it to do (i.e. print) - we just have to switch that part on. We are also too stupid to realise that because we don't even try to understand how computers work - because they are magic and we won't be able to. But we must have them for our elections because they are magic and using computers for anything will obviously make it better. That's alright then.

I wonder if any of these people ever heard of Josef Stalin? You know, the fellah that said "It is not the people who vote that count. It is the people who count the votes."