Posted on 01/29/2008 5:08:42 AM PST by lifelong_republican
"...many experts say that a paper trail alone can't solve the problem..."
(Excerpt) Read more at technologyreview.com ...
They also deserve to have the choice of real conservatives in the race too.
I totally agree with you. The American people supporting the Constitution and other conservative values should not have to wonder if their votes are being counted accurately.
You ever post a thread that isn’t about voting machines?
Never mind, I know the answer.
What other issue would you care to discuss that wouldn’t be moot once you give up your representation in government?
A paper trail won’t improve the quality of the candidates, though.
MortMan you make an excellent point. Americans deserve better candidates as well as the right to have their votes counted accurately.
Thanks.
Mainly because what you say is bunk. As long as man is capable of infusing dry ink onto paper or spraying jets of ink at paper, there can and likely will be a paper trail. I’ve voted a couple of times on a touch-screen electronic voting machine.
Both times I saw a printed version of my selection. I’m not sure what your beef is, nor do I really care. My problem is I suspect you come here under false pretenses, “lifelong republican”, only to push your pet cause.
Since most documented cases of ballot tampering are Democrat and took place with paper ballots, I believe it is beneficial for conservatives to vote electronically. No “hanging chads”, no “dimpled chads”, no replay of Florida 2000, no Democrats riding around with a trunk full of paper ballots.
If you like, you can try to fight technology. Many have tried. All have failed. Perhaps we should just chisel our choices in a stone tablet, ala “The Flintstones”?
I’m of the opinion that if you cared squat about conservatism, you would have posts reflecting that. You don’t. You don’t even have comments on other people’s threads. The FReepers who agree with you will ignore your obvious agenda because they share your views on this one issue. I’m about 90% sure you are misleading everyone here with your moniker.
I’m quoting experts at MIT.
Shouldn’t you contact them and tell them why you claim their statements would be ‘bunk’?
What do you imagine would be ‘conservative’ about a premature jump into the use of electronics already found by the GAO to be unsuitable for use in elections?
Your unfounded misgivings about a messenger don’t have anything to do with the content of the message, in case you hadn’t been aware of that. Please make a note of it. Thank you.
Unfortunately the article is about how stupid people can’t negotiate touchscreens.
For once it is not about how electtronic voting is subject to manipulation by people who get physical access to the machines.
That’s only one of many problems with the electronics. It’s been documented that they lose, switch, and fake votes, too.
It's been documented by people with agendas.
Show me one spec of "documentation" that is not from a liberal front group or university and I'll check it out.
Actually, the lost votes were documented by university students studying a system that was subsequently decertified by the state using it. The switched votes were documented by voters trying to vote for Rick Santorum. The faked votes were a matter of public record in another state.
Since most documented cases of ballot tampering are Democrat and took place with paper ballots, I believe it is beneficial for conservatives to vote electronically. No “hanging chads”, no “dimpled chads”, no replay of Florida 2000, no Democrats riding around with a trunk full of paper ballots.
I am certainly attracted to that, too. But I think that the problem is fundamentally intractable as long as we have a secret ballot. There is always an irreducible amount of trust required as long as there isn't a public tally which shows the vote before and after you voted. With that, you could know exactly how your vote registered - and also, exactly how anyone else voted while you were in the polling place.But we need a secret ballot, so . . .
MortMan you make an excellent point. Americans deserve better candidates as well as the right to have their votes counted accurately.
Exactly - but the worst problem we have is "the dog who doesn't bark." How are we to select the best nominee for the general election, when that person isn't on the ballot? Not only Fred Thompson, but also Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour - and how many excellent private executives such as Herman Cain, should also be considered.Equally troublesome, even with a comprehensive list of highly competent Repubicans there is no principled way of determining the best one from a simple ballot. What we need is a way of selecting delegates to the RNC convention who will faithfully represent the Republican Party - and a process of negotiation at that convention which will select a candidate who is broadly acceptable to the party and able to rally it to the polls.
For that matter, perhaps some form of Internet haggling would be conceivable wherein the Republican Party could assemble virtually and interact through some sort of a bidding system to home in on an acceptable candidate. A single ballot simply is wholly inadequate for selecting among multiple candidates.
It’s true that there should be improvements to the way candidates are selected and put on the ballots, but no matter how much better that gets, the potential for the will of the voters to be thwarted via the electronics remains, and must be addressed if representation is to be restored to the people of the USA.
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.