How does the use of electronic voting machines act as a "double-edged sword?" What moral dimensions are raised by this use of information technology?

What will be an ideal response?

Electronic voting machines can be seen as beneficial by making voting easy to accomplish and tabulate. However, it may be easier to tamper with electronic voting machines than with countable paper ballots. In terms of information rights, it seems possible that methods could be set up to determine how an individual has voted and to store and disseminate this knowledge. Manufacturers of voting machines claim property rights to the voting software, which means that if the software is protected from inspection, there is no regulation in how the software operates or how accurate it is. In terms of accountability and control, if an electronic voting system malfunctions, will it be the responsibility of the government, of the company manufacturing the machines or software, or the programmers who programmed the software? The dimension of system quality raises questions of how the level of accuracy of the machines is to be judged and what level is acceptable? In terms of quality of life, while it may make voting easier and quicker, does the vulnerability to abuse of these systems pose a threat to the democratic principle of one person, one vote?