Electronic Voting Can't Be Trusted

Sun-Sentinel ^ | 29 November 2006 | Norma Fisher

[lifelong_republican]

You are absolutely right. Your point is well made and well taken. I stand corrected.

You said:

"Correction: intended to lose, switch, and fake votes."

[lifelong_republican]

The corrupt Rendell Democrats even made a paper printout 'illegal' in PA to disenfranchise the voters.

[lifelong_republican]

I have no financial interest in any 'voting' industry. I know that Americans can handle that without outsourcing it.

[lifelong_republican]

Thank you for making an important point so well. You said:

Just flick a few bits.. And puff and know ones the wiser.

An old uncle Joe Stalin dream come true.

-The more complicated the plumbing, The easier it is to stop up the pipes.- Scotty - 2184

[lifelong_republican]

Are you aware that the NIST has now condemned electronic voting?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0612/S00041.htm

[wideawake]

Can you keep a Straight face spreading BS like that?

Disprove a single thing I said.

Or shut your mouth.

[lifelong_republican]

I'd said that electronics are unreliable.

Then you said:

"As is paper."

Yet the electronics are far more unreliable than paper. Paper doesn't fail because of a powerline aberration or a hardware failure or a software anomaly.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting_2.html

I'd noted that electronics are vulnerable.

Then you said:

"as is paper"

Yet the vulnerability of paper requires observable local actions by those who would tamper with it, while with the electronics the manipulation can be centralized, widespread, and undetectable.

I'd mentioned that the electronics are needlessly complex.

To which you said:

"To a computing-illiterate moron perhaps."

Do you believe that all voters are computer users, or that even if they were, they should have to use defective computers instead of voting?

Yet that's not even the real point there: the term "complexity" refers to pencil and paper being a simpler system, even including counters and video security for the ballots.

I pointed out that the electronics are exhorbitantly expensive.

Then you said:

"They're cheaper."

Actually, the electronics are vastly more expensive than hand-counted paper ballots.

Here's a typical example:

"the high-tech elections wound up costing as much as 25 per cent more than regular voting, chief electoral officer Marcel Blanchet said in his report."

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=9942d279-c6e0-402f-a3e3-8155ff88968e&k=53858

I'd added that electronics are inconvenient for the voters. Then you said:

"Inconevenient only to imbeciles - convenient for people who know what a PC is."

Actually, when the electronics fail and people have to stand in line for hours that has nothing to do with whether those voters would be good with computers or not. When someone tampers with the electronics and people lose their votes despite going to the trouble of visiting the polls - as with the massive undervote rates of the electronics - that is effectively turning people away from the polls despite their intent of using them.

I'd informed you that the electronics are unauditable. To which you said:

"LOL! They're more auditable than paper."

Had you any evidence for your statement? It is proven wrong at any bank, for one example.

I mentioned the GAO report. I've subsequently mentioned the NIST report. Then you said:

You're going to have to cite this preposterous claim.

Here's the GAO report:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf

Here's the NIST release:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/federal-agency-doubts-electronic-voting/20061201232109990001?_ccc=3&cid=842

I had asked:

Would you insist that the earth must be flat in the event that anyone you could imagine would be from a faction separate from your own says it is spherical?

Then you said:

"You've lost all coherence - which was a shaky area for you from the get-go."

My words stand. If only yours could.

[quietolong]

Hit a nerve there?

I could just flip that around. But I won’t. Doing one at a time here.

First a little story.

Back in the 80’s when computerized gas pumps were making there appearances. People would gas up and go “Gee my gage must be off it should be higher” A few complained. But when state inspectors checked the station out. Everything worked like it should.

It took some time. But what was happening was a few unscrupulous owners got some pirate chips and put them in there pumps. (and remember what pirate chips did in runaway;)
When inspectors come out they have calibrated containers that they would fill to check out the pumps to see if gal. & $ matched up. Let’s just say 5 gal. The chips were programmed to pump out the correct amounts for 5 gal. but would cheat you if the amount you pumped was more or less than 5 gal.

How hard will it be to get pirate chips for voting? (china fabs) Powers the prize here funds & talent will be made available. No price is too small.
The above story had a physical amount to check. All they had to do was pump an odd amount. In a paper less scheme there’s nothing to check. You ask the machine. Isn’t that
like asking a crook if he just robbed you? How can you prove a person voted the way he did? You can’t! Put all the smoke & gadgets you want around it. In the end it comes down to knowing the right bits to flick. Garbage in garbage out!

Can you tell me what weapon fired the “first” shot in Golf War I?

That’s all for now. It’s getting late.