Posted on 07/29/2007 12:47:40 PM PDT by RWR8189
An Allentown man who smashed an electronic voting machine because he didn't trust it and believed that election results could be altered was convicted Wednesday of summary offenses of disorderly conduct and criminal mischief.
After a Lehigh County nonjury trial, Michael C. Young, who represented himself, was sentenced to 180 days of probation and was ordered to pay $2,910 for replacement of the touch-screen machine.
Young, 43, of 375 Auburn St., admitted that he went to a polling place at the Good Shepherd Home at Sixth and St. John streets, Allentown, on Nov. 7. He testified that he struck the screen of a Diebold-manufactured machine four times with a small figurine.
''I was obligated to destroy it to the best of my ability,'' Young told Judge William E. Ford.
As a condition of probation, Young was ordered not to vote at that polling place.
(Excerpt) Read more at mcall.com ...
It was evil! EEEVVVIIILLLLL!!!
Young should have done jail time for interfering with elections.
I’ll bet that he was one of the moonbats agitating for electronic voting machines after the 2000 elections.
No jail time? That sucks. A 43-yr old man who believes what he reads in Rolling Stone shouldn’t be walking around loose.
<50 % sarc> the least hizhonner could have done is take away his RKBA </sarc>
How about his RKBF (right to keep and bear figurines)? LOL
Perhaps they rely on the chads.
What I want to know is who is responsible for the failure of this scheme last fall?
Ballot tampering, stuffing, and other types of fraud is as old as voting. The problem is not that one system is “secure” and another isn’t. What is essential in any voting system is that it be very very difficult for small numbers of individuals to commit fraud on a large scale. Having to manipulate millions of paper ballots across widely dispersed geographies imposes physical and logistical challenges which provide inherent assurance that nothing short of “grand conspiracy” involving large numbers of people can statistically alter the result.
Collusion among large numbers of people is almost impossible to conceal. There are too many opportunities for the skein of lies to unravel. This fact is fundamental to the design of antifraud systems. We know we can’t have a perfect system. What is essential to the foundations of democracy, however, is that large scale fraud require the involvement of large numbers of people. That’s our only statistical assurance against “ballot box coups”.
The danger of electronic voting is not that individual systems are more or less secure than paper ones. The danger is that systemic problems might permit small numbers of people to commit large-scale fraud and thus successfully subvert the democratic process.
“Michael C. Young, who represented himself” - what’s that about a man who represents himself has a fool for a client?
I wonder what his DU screen name is.....
When figurines are outlawed, only nutroots will have figurines.
If he says, “You can have my figurine when you pry it from my cold dead hands.” my reply is: Offer accepted.
“he struck the screen of a Diebold-manufactured machine four times with a small figurine.”
A Howard Dean statuette?
If I’d been the judge here, I’d order another psych exam, and bar him from posting at DU indefinetly.
It wasn’t Lifelong Republican, was it??
;^)
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.