Posted on 01/31/2007 2:18:31 AM PST by lifelong_republican
You make a very important point about doing away with the silent vote, and I agree with you. I vote my conscience and don't mind who knows it.
I bought into no such thing. In fact, I have no idea how you even got onto this whole thought process. My original comment was that south Florida proved that they were incapable of properly marking a paper ballot - a paper ballot designed by a democrat elections supervisor and used for 25 years. Somehow, form that, you got into the whole Hillary thing.
The Clintonistas are slimey and evil but they aren't prescient enough to predict that south Florida's heavily Democrat counties are full of as many morons as there are.
Grandma, let me reiterate. I LIVE in Florida. I LIVED in Florida at the time of the 2000 election and I probably know far better than you what was going on in Florida. I followed that whole stupid debacle very closely and didn't touch the whole issue of ballot theft and fraud for this very reason. I didn't want to re-hash that election and I still don't.
I do not believe for one minute these voters in the county were too stupid to know how to mark a ballot. I do believe they were zealous enough in wanting to steal the election that they allowed themselves to be used out of the necessity to steal the election.
Oh really? You don't mind the local newspaper printing the names, addresses and phone numbers of all Republican voters in the area? You don't mind having this information splashed all over DU and Daily Kos, so they know whose houses and cars to vandalize, whose children to target for intimidation and/or harm, and which employers to target for boycotts, physical attacks and computer network hacks? Do you honestly think that rank and file democrats would do anything about these activities besides chuckle and say we had it coming?
Because that, and much more, is exactly what would happen if the secret ballot were done away with. How exactly do you think Saddam Hussein managed to get 99% of the "vote" in his "elections", and how exactly do you think he knew which people were part of that 1 percent that was rounded up and fed feet first into the shredders?
No, YOU FELL FOR IT!!!! I never said there was a problem with the paper ballots, THAT was the Dims cry!!!! I only used it as a point of reference in my comment. The only "problem" with the ballots occurred in S. Florida, which just happens to be where the 4 most heavily Democrat counties are. Hmmmmmmmmm, was there supposed to be a fix in!!??? Gee, I wonder!!!
Dude, I fell for nothing, YOU misunderstood the intent of my comments because you wanted to rant!! Hope it was good for you.
You haven't spent much time in S. Florida, have you? In Palm Beach county alone, they had to toss something in the neighborhood of 14,000 to 16,000 ballots because they were "improperly marked".
Given the stakes for both parties in 2000, it is disingenuous to suggest that thousands of Dems conspired to mismark their ballots so that they would have to be tossed. That's a conspiracy theory from the moonbat wing of the Dem party.
This is how they got pregnant chads, hanging chads, etc. It made sense.
If I remember correctly, Freeper Robert E Cook carefully analyzed precincts and was able to pretty much determine how many votes had been destroyed.
It's in the archives somewhere.
You seem to be very afraid of possibilities which aren't really very likely.
I'll tell anybody who asks me how I voted. I've had brisk political discussions with other people who disagree and who know where I live.
America's supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, as in free to speak our minds and brave enough to deal with disagreement.
More relevantly, the vote didn't become secret until after the civil war. The founders of the USA saw no problem with it, and they're the ones who really did put their lives at risk for their beliefs.
"You can't assume that these computers would be designed correctly. They're also far less reliable than paper. "
You can't assume they would be designed improperly.
"Nobody is saying that paper would be perfect, but studies have shown that it's more reliable than the electronics. "
What studies are those? Perhaps democratic funded studies?
"Tampering with paper is more physically demanding, more difficult to do on a widespread basis, and far easier to detect than tampering with the electronics."
I'm sure glad every single bank in the country runs with computers.
You should never just assume a computer system would be designed correctly when you don't know how it's designed, or built, or operated.
Here's some info on why paper, for all its faults, is more reliable (paper never fails to boot):
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html
The corrupt Democrats are pushing for these ballotless systems because they make vote fraud convenient and easy to hide, in fact.
There's a huge difference between bank computers and 'voting' systems, which includes the totally independently auditable record system used by the banks.
Now they will b!tch about the new paper ballots.
Paper trail is, essentially, an accounting term that sho\ws a transaction from source to completion.
Nothing complicated about it. With the paper ballot systems, we have had paper trails for generations. The electronic touch screen systems all state that they don't store the entire vote and lack the capacity to generate a paper record in the event of a recount or contested election.
In addition, I have seen numerous articles from different colleges or other groups all claiming to have either hacked into the machines or gotten into the data and manipulated it.
Until/unless there is a system that is more bullet proof and provides a means of generating a permanent record, I continue to agree that Crist made the right decision.
Exactly. Claiming is the operative word. - anyone can claim anything, and the media is no exception.
Dusty, I'm surprised that you would accept such media tripe as factual.
If that were truly the case, then it would be plastered over the world in big bold headlines with numerous engineers showing exactly what the factual basis was, and lawsuits would be abounding.
Al Gore claims that he won in 2000. - Please...
Why? Ive worked in high tech for over 30 years. I've seen, done and experienced a lot of things in engineering labs that a lot of people would claim are false. In addition to the claims of the hacks, I've also seen confirmations by some of the manufacturers of these machines (not all) acknowledging the hack. Stranger things have happened, Bill.
Granted the technology exists to prevent the hacks. The larger issue, for me, is the lack of an audit trail. That's the more troubling aspect. It may be old fashioned but, until we can make elections Democrat theft-proof, I want the ability to provide an audit trail or a paper trail. I want the ability to trace each vote to its source and verify its validity. Without that ability, President Gore would be our lame duck president, instead of the poster child for unhinged enviro-nazis. Instead, President Bush is in his lame duck session, solely because of the paper trail that the previous system left behind.
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.