Replies

"You can argue about how many safe gaurds could be put into effect, The simple fact is that nothing is as secure as a paper trail...Even that not being perfect."

And you say that as you dialogue on a worldwide network of millions of connected computers, transacting billions of dollars in business a year. They should have used paper - its faster, more reliable and secure, don't you know.

America has the technology to send robotic probes about the Solar System, but cannot develop a reliable and secure voting system - got it!

We have ATM machines virtually everywhere in the world, dispensing billions of dollars a year, but can not develop a reliable and secure voting system - got it!

The problem with updating the voting system technology is not technological, it is political; neither side understands fully how to exploit the new system. So they error on the side of caution and oppose it.

I’m not saying that a change to a newer system should be made. The benefits of doing so are undefined. But the technologies for doing so are well established.

This is the result of electronic voting. Even if you believe it could be secure. It is not. We should not have gone there. Very detailed article:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/08_25_03/Concerns_Over/concerns_over.html