The Great Unraveling Author -- Has Krugman uncovered a voting-booth conspiracy? Of course not.

National Review Online ^ | Dec. 3, 2003 | Donald Luskin

[maica]

Their "proof" will simply be that "shock" the people actually voted Republican. That can't be, the machines were fixed like we said, see!

This is one of the cards that the Dems are counting on after Nov 2004.

The seminar-caller-Dems will NEVER believe that our country is trending more conservative! I think the landslide has to be huge in order for insurrection not to break out. All the race hustlers will be willing accomplices to the McAuliffe/Clinton machine.

[Vinnie]

Do they write this stuff while gazing in the mirror?!

YES

[Vinnie]

Peter Principle # 231

If you want to know what the dems are up to, listen to what they accuse the repubs of doing.

[MediaMole]

If the machines are accurate and prevent fraud, then the reduction in Democrat vote fraud will look like Republican vote fraud to people like Krugman.

[small voice in the wilderness]

Curses! They're on to us. It's back to hiding the conservative dwarves inside the voting machines. It's just so difficult to out-evil the evil ones anymore.

[SAJ]

I don't know the Diebold people at all, so no comment on them or their product, but if their system is as easy to disrupt and/or corrupt as has been indicated many times in many pubs, they've got a major problem. I've designed data systems for close on to thirty yrs, and the principal rules of all of them are: 1) you can't possibly have too many copies of your data, because the worst case WILL occur, 2) if you can't track the history of your data back to the first keystroke, you can not rationally assert the validity of the data.

This is NOT nuclear physics -- hell's bells, any bright college freshman could design a lot of assorted systems very well, postulating only that he or she had some amount of experience in/with such systems. From a data standpoint (and from a systems standpoint, too), the struc and proc of a competently designed balloting system is absolutely child's play compared to, say, six-sigma production quality control or multivariant real-time sims or any number of other apps.

Why in the world the ''problem'' (sic) of effectively tamper-proof e-balloting has not been quite thoroughly solved is a complete mystery to me. Now, I understand perfectly well why, once solved, such a solution might not be implemented; that's easy. Some politicians have a strong vested interest in NOT having a tamper-proof system...but why (apparently) IS there no implementable solution yet? Baffling.

FReegards, and Happy Hols!

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Produce a piece of paper counted by both sides at the local level to ensure no fraud occurs.

Spoken like a man who's never been to Chicago. :)

[chmst]

ping