Well, sort of. There’s the usual partisan muttering in today’s NYT column on electronic voting, as well as some predictably one-sided conspiracy-mongering, but his key point rings true:

“You don’t have to believe in a central conspiracy to worry that partisans will take advantage of an insecure, unverifiable voting system to manipulate election results. Why expose them to temptation?”

And even if ‘partisans’ can (as one hopes) resist that temptation, the mere fact that the votes tallied by such systems are unverifiable is bound to raise suspicions that the count was indeed rigged. When Krugman claims that this issue is “about the credibility of US democracy,” he’s dead right. Interestingly, Krugman writes that Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey has introduced a bill requiring that digital voting machines leave a paper trail and that their software be available for public inspection. That sounds like a good idea, but I’d still prefer a simple pen and paper ballot.