Posted on 12/02/2006 3:06:34 AM PST by lifelong_republican
RYMB!
And THAT frill accomplishes exactly what??? A slip of paper left in the hand of the voter does squat to protect the integrity of the balloting process. A paper ballot sealed inside the machine which can be hand counted does.
A "potential human error" count is a hell of a lot better than a system in which an honest recount is impossible. All-electronic voting is just plain DUMB.
i never said the solution would be all electronic. just secure and reliable. it would have the added bonus of being able to produce instant, up to the second tallies across the nation.
Electronically scanned paper ballots can already do all that, while retaining the integrity of the balloting process by storing the ORIGINAL voted ballot sealed internally in the event that a recount is needed.
There's already a superior approach available off-the-shelf. "Touch-screen" systems are a drastic step in the wrong direction. Pick the BEST system, and use it.
IMHO, electronically-scanned paper ballots are the best possible choice.
You are right, of course. The counting must be observed.
Thank you, DB. Your patriotism is appreciated.
You make an excellent point about the fascination with touchscreens. Even banks don't use them on their newer ATMs because they're so problem-prone.
I totally agree with you that the use of manipulatable 'voting' systems is deliberate.
Solution?
paper ballot(if it ain't broke, don't fix it)
You are absolutely right. Well said.
A lot of people asked that question about the lever machines when they were confronted with the huge expense and lack of accountability of the electronics. They were claimed not to meet HAVA - the Help ('Hack') America Vote Act - if I recall correctly, because of a lack of a paper printout. The corrupt Democrats of the Rendell mob made paper printouts from the electronics 'illegal' in PA, which is a more demonstrable violation of HAVA. Those crooks have been violating PA law all along. They even started refusing perfectly legal elector demands that the systems be examined by independent experts.
Why do you believe that a computer must be on a network to be 'hacked'?
What you want to imagine would be a 'myth' is a very real problem, and it affects you, too.
I agree totally.
Why do you believe that a paper ballot must equal a 'butterfly ballot'?
I'm not so good at acronyms but one of interest is "MTBF", which stands for "Mean Time Between Failures". The votefraud systems fail far more often than the typical desktop IBM-clone, yet they cost ten times as much.
How hard could it be to add a paper printout capability? But that's not the question. What is the question, as you're pointing out, is how best for the RATS to rig elections. Disgusting.
"And THAT frill accomplishes exactly what??? A slip of paper left in the hand of the voter does squat to protect the integrity of the balloting process. A paper ballot sealed inside the machine which can be hand counted does.
OK, let's go over this again. When I voted last, I did so electronically. As I completed the voting process, a receipt printed and REMAINED INSIDE THE MACHINE. I was able to view my selecions, on paper, through a small glass window.
That is THE definition of a paper trail, is it not? Please, question liberals at every turn. What they are spouting about electronic voting is largely BS.
And THAT frill accomplishes exactly what??? A slip of paper left in the hand of the voter does squat to protect the integrity of the balloting process. A paper ballot sealed inside the machine which can be hand counted does.
At my polling place (touchscreens, Santa Clara county, CA), the printed record that he's referring to does stay sealed inside the machine. Seen through a plastic viewing window, the voter has a chance to review it and change his votes before they're cast but the printed record stays within the machine.
A printed record that you take with you would be an open invitation for voter intimidation: "Please bring your voting record to the next (union/NEA/whatever) meeting."
Electronic-only systems are not only vulnerable to being compromised but highly vulnerable to being compromised with out the compromise being detected.
Of all of the automated voting systems I've seen, the electo-optical systems had the most resilience. The ballot is marked with an indelible marker and the vote counter scans the ballot. In the case of a problem, all of the ballots can be recounted electronically or manually. This removes the electronic system as the single point of failure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.