"Electronic voting led to errors, report says"

The Houston Chronicle ^ | 3 January 2007 | Rosanna Ruiz

[lifelong_republican]

Well, I'm sober, anyway, and you did say "the liberals all said" as if they somehow all communicated with you and told you what to say to represent them.

I'm a conservative and that means I support fiscal responsibility, respect for the US Constitution, and preservation of important national traditions such as the right to vote.

Those who support using defective voting systems aren't loyal to the USA.

[lifelong_republican]

The Republicans of Pennsylvania reported problems in the election in which Rick Santorum lost, for example.

[Jeffrey_D.]

Did they call for a do-over?

I have a lot of family in Pa. It's a shame Rick lost. What a fine mind and great leader.

[dforest]

Truth is it doesn't really matter what type of voting device we have anymore. Until people get tired of all types of fraud, like dead people voting, stealing smart cards, illegals voting, multiple voting, bribing voters, throwing white out on voter registries etc...need I list more.

The people we vote for were intended to represent us. Funny how most of us no longer feel we have a voice in our government and the direction it takes on so many issues. Instead we have a media and polls that tell us what we are supposed to think.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

People who can't figure out how to vote shouldn't vote anyway.

As I understand it, Al Gore is claiming that he should be President because people who wanted to vote him are too stoopid to poke a hole in a piece of paper.

Now he wants to destroy the economy because of something he misunderstood in an introductory undergraduate survey science course. [He's never even taken physics I or calculus for poets, for gawd's sake.]

Good going, Al.

[lifelong_republican]

It does matter how we handle our elections, despite abuses of the past, present, or future.

The electronics make it far more easy to subvert elections without risk of detection.

Those who have employed other forms of vote fraud do not deserve to have convenience and secrecy afforded them.

[lifelong_republican]

How would you define destruction of the economy?

When people are deprived of representation in government they are forced, thusly, into economic slavery.

[lifelong_republican]

They called for machines to be impounded from 27 locations, where voters had actually seen their votes switched from Rick Santorum to his opponent.

[dforest]

The electronics make it far more easy to subvert elections without risk of detection.

You will get no argument from me on that. I was pointing out what a shame it is for all of us that people , so many anymore, have no faith in our voting procedures. And for good reason.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

I think you have the wrong guy. I'm just belittling Gore.

On point, I guess that electronic voting can be made as secure as ATMs and just as reliable. ATMs have much lower error rates than human tellers.

Certainly the incentive to cheat with ATMs is at least as strong as the incentive to cheat with electronic voting systems.

I grew up in fabulous Noo Yawk City where voting machines were mechanical tabulators. The voter selected his or her preferences by setting a series of small levers below candidates names, or ballot issues. Once the voter was finished she or he pulled a large lever which simultaneously recorded the votes by incrementing a set of mechanical tabulators, like an bank of odometers, and opened the curtain in the voting booth.

After the election, the tabulators were locked by use of a key. Again, a key locked panel would be opened and the tabulator results transcribed to paper forms which were collected by the board the elections. The machines remained locked in a sealed facility until the elections were certified by the board of elections. Until that time representives of candidates would be permitted access to the machines to verify the results.

This system was completely uncontroversial and considered fair by both major parties. It was far less subject to tampering than paper ballots.

In principle, electronic voting could achieve even better security and accuracy. The problem is that people have more trust in the relatively simple and open operation of mechanical devices than the arcane workings of electronic tabulators.

Elections must be perceived to be fair, as well as actually being fair.


In addition, certain unprincipled nameless [Democratic Party] organizations cavil and pettifog about the outcomes of elections they are unsatisfied with. They raise spurious objections which undermine people's faith in the operation of elections for partisan gain.

[lifelong_republican]

You wrote:

"I was pointing out what a shame it is for all of us that people , so many anymore, have no faith in our voting procedures. And for good reason."

Of course you are absolutely right, indylindy. We should be setting the best example in the world of how to conduct elections, not being a laughingstock for vote fraud.

[lifelong_republican]

I was just wondering what you would consider "economic destruction", because I'm a conservative who supports fiscal responsibility. I'm not in any way attempting to put you on the spot personally.

There's a reason why the 'voting' systems aren't secure: it's deliberate. They aren't designed the same way as ATMs and don't have the auditability that banks and merchants require. There's far more at stake in manipulations of elections than with even bank transactions. They're known to be less reliable than paper ballots counted by hand.

You're totally correct in pointing out that not only must elections be conducted honestly, the public must have confidence in that honesty.

[dforest]

I never thought I would see the day where we actually have people offered up to monitor our elections. A lot of this has been brought about by RATs who want to set up the appearance that voters are being disenfranchised. Truth is that they are the ones who have shamefully destroyed our system in order to gain power.If we don't like it we will have to react or we will never have a fair election again.

[lifelong_republican]

You wrote:

"I never thought I would see the day where we actually have people offered up to monitor our elections. A lot of this has been brought about by RATs who want to set up the appearance that voters are being disenfranchised. Truth is that they are the ones who have shamefully destroyed our system in order to gain power.If we don't like it we will have to react or we will never have a fair election again."

The corrupt Democrats, particularly those in the Rendell mob - with its alleged 'druglord's choice' Pedro Cortés as secretary of state of PA - are forcing voters to give up their rights to self-generated and self-confirmed physical ballots in order to sell them out along with everyone else in Pennsylvania. They're complicit in vendor misrepresentations which have cost the counties millions of taxpayer dollars already, as the voters in those counties saw their votes thrown away in amazing numbers.

[repvetsyiydli]

They've been subverting the WOT for the past few years and still they got elected.

You see TKennnedy calling for America's defeat in Iraq today?

He'll be elected again and again until he's in the grave.

Such is America TODAY (pray for tomorrow).

Speaking of which, Arnie the Gov of Cali said today that Cali is the leading state in the world and yet Cali loses more Americas than any other US state currently day by day.

Arnie must bless those illegals for keeping his leading welfare state afloat and keeping Cali the leader of the free states of the world (Schwarzenegger: Calif. is 'nation-state' leading world...).

God bless and good night.

And Arnie how come we haven't seen a picture of your wife in years (she LEFT too or has anorexia wiped her out completely?).

[lifelong_republican]

You wonder how some people ever get 'elected', and so do I. The problem is that we won't choose who gets elected anymore, it will be the choice of those who manipulate the electronics, including the communist Chinese and the corrupt Democrats.

[repvetsyiydli]

Being that the Mid-Terms only brought out 33% of American voters, who needed manipulation?!

Hopefully Bush's new strategy in Iraq shows results else it's back to pre-1994 come 08.

What say U?

[norton]

"OK, put back paper ballots and claim this election is null and void and let's do it again in a few weeks."

Now THAT calls for a petition drive!

What gripes me the most is that the dems literally demanded a chad-free electronic voting process - until they got one.

Ummm...kind of like they demanded more troops on the ground, until they got 'em.

[lifelong_republican]

You bring up a very interesting issue.

Manipulation of elections will always be sought regardless of voter turnout rates.

Voters will tend to take a pass when they don't believe their choices will matter, or when they don't trust the process, or when they're affected by other conditions, or a combination of such factors.

Despite the low turnout, the faulty electronics caused longer lines than ever. Where I vote the lines were the longest I'd ever seen yet, far worse than even in general elections, because of machine failure and the extra time it takes to use a more, rather than less, complicated process.

The few who do vote don't have any proof that their votes were counted as cast, counted at all, or not switched or replaced by fake votes, with the electronics.

Here's an interesting discussion of this:

http://www.elon.edu/predictions/q14.aspx