The American presidential election of 2000 was, to put it mildly, controversial. People still argue bitterly over whether George Bush truly won in Florida, the state whose electoral votes made him president even though he had garnered fewer votes nationwide than Al Gore, his main opponent.

　　The presidential election this November will be of crucial importance -- and once again, observers generally agree, very close. In addition, the Senate is split 51-49 in favor of the Republicans, so a shift of only two seats could either hand it to the Democrats or make it much likelier to cooperate with a right-wing Republican president. How can an accurate vote count be guaranteed?

　　It can't, at least not in an absolute sense. All voting systems are open to tampering and error. The easiest elections to audit are the least technically sophisticated: voting with paper ballots. However, as David Horsey points out in today's cartoon, ballot boxes can be "stuffed" -- and occasionally have been in America, in cities or counties under the control of one tightly disciplined and unscrupulous political organization. Today oversight committees and the press make ballot stuffing far less likely, as do private polls of people leaving voting stations: if the polls produce different results from the balloting, then something is fishy.

　　Why all this fuss with paper and pens and ballot boxes when machines can simplify the whole task? Actually, the trouble in Florida centred on the difficulty of reading ballots from voting machines. Ah, but we live in a high-tech era: why not go over to electronic voting using touch-screen systems or the internet? Because these electronic methods are far more open to manipulation, whether by mischief-minded hackers or political operatives who will stop at nothing to win. And if tampering occurs, a clean audit of the votes is impossible.

　　In the lower frame of his cartoon, David Horsey shows us what could happen if an irresponsible young fool hacked into a voting system. Nobody really thinks Canadians, of all people, are likely to be up to this sort of thing, least of all a Canadian from Winnipeg, that haven of innocence in the centre of Canada -- this is part of the humor of the cartoon. Nervous Democrats, however, have noticed two disquieting things about the companies that produce voting technology: their security precautions are inexcusably sloppy -- and the firms are mostly controlled by businessmen allied with the Republican Party.




传统vs高科技 哪种计票方式更可靠?
　　美国2000年的总统大选--说得委婉点儿--是有争议的。人们至今还在苦苦争论当年布什是不是真的在佛罗里达州赢了，是该州的选票让他成为了总统，尽管他在全美国的得票总数比对手戈尔要少。

　　今年9月的大选对美国今后的走向至关重要，观察家们基本都同意这是又一次势均力敌的选举。此外，参院两党席位之比51：49,共和党占多数，因此，任何一方的两个席位的改变要么使民主党成为多数党，要么使参院更能与右翼的共和党总统合作。那么，如何保证选票计数的精确无误呢？

　　这是不可能的，至少不可能绝对准确。所有的投票系统都能被人做手脚或出错。最容易监控的投票方式是技术难度最低的那种：用纸选票来选。然而，在今天的漫画中漫画家戴维·霍尔西指出，票箱有可能被“偷塞假选票”--美国的某些城市或区县在极有组织且又极无道德的政治组织的控制下这种情况时有发生。而今天，监督委员会与媒体的存在使得偷塞假选票不太可能发生了，而对投票之后即将离开的选民所进行的民意调查也不太可能造假，如果民调结果与选票结果不一样，那么肯定是哪儿出了问题。

　　那么，当机器可以简化整个选举工作时为什么还要用纸、笔和票箱将选举搞得这么繁琐忙乱呢？实际上，当年佛罗里达州发生的问题集中在机械式投票机的读票困难上，可我们是生活在高科技时代啊，为什么不能使用点触屏幕系统或网上投票的电子方式呢？这是因为电子方式更容易被操纵，无论是搞恶作剧的黑客还是为了获胜而不择手段的政治人物都更容易对其做手脚，如果这种手脚发生了，对选票的彻底清查就变得不可能了。

　　在这幅漫画的下栏，霍尔西让我们看到了如果一个不负责任的年轻蠢货闯入计票系统会发生什么事。没有谁会真的以为在世界各国人民当中加拿大人会干这种事，更不用说是来自温尼伯这个加拿大中部民风淳朴的港口城市的人了--这是该漫画的另一幽默之处。然而，神经紧张的民主党人注意到了生产投票设备和软件的公司有两点令人不安之处：产品安全防卫系统的设计令人无法原谅的马虎，而这些公司又大多控制在与共和党结盟的企业家手里。

[/hide]

关键字:双语新闻,中英文对照