NCPA - National Center for Policy Analysis


June 15, 2004

State oversight of electronic gambling machines is far more stringent than for electronic voting systems, says the New York Times.

For example:

  • The state of Nevada has copies of every type of gambling software used in the past five years, and casinos cannot use software not on file; electronic voting machine makers have resisted sharing their software with states that buy their machines.
  • Gambling machines are constantly spot-checked by board inspectors, but unannounced spot-checking isn't required for electronic voting.
  • Gambling machine standards are updated frequently; for instance, all machines must work when subjected to a 20,000-volt shock. Electronic voting machines still operate on standards from 2002.
  • Companies that want to make slot machines must pass a background check of six months or more and must register their employees with the Gaming Control Board; there are no such requirements for voting machine manufacturers.

Furthermore, when a gambler has a dispute about a machine, he has a right to an immediate investigation by the Gaming Control Board, which has investigators available around the clock. If a voter has a dispute about a voting machine, he can only call the board of elections and is not guaranteed an investigation.

Source: Editorial, "Gambling on Voting," New York Times, June 13, 2004.


Browse more articles on Government Issues