Skip to comments.
The Great Unraveling Author --
Has Krugman uncovered a voting-booth conspiracy? Of course not.
National Review Online ^
| Dec. 3, 2003
| Donald Luskin
Posted on 12/03/2003 1:58:15 PM PST by ReleaseTheHounds
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-28 last
To: gimmealewinsky; Freee-dame
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.
21
posted on
12/03/2003 3:31:05 PM PST
by
maica
(Laus Deo)
To: Timeout
Do they write this stuff while gazing in the mirror?!YES
22
posted on
12/03/2003 3:45:50 PM PST
by
Vinnie
To: Vinnie; Timeout
Peter Principle # 231
If you want to know what the dems are up to, listen to what they accuse the repubs of doing.
23
posted on
12/03/2003 3:48:42 PM PST
by
Vinnie
To: Vinnie
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.
To: ReleaseTheHounds
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.
To: GluteusMax
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!
26
posted on
12/03/2003 4:34:53 PM PST
by
SAJ
To: GluteusMax
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. :)
27
posted on
12/03/2003 4:39:56 PM PST
by
KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
("The Clintons have damaged our country. They have done it together, in unison." -- Peggy Noonan)
To: ReleaseTheHounds
ping
28
posted on
12/03/2003 10:14:48 PM PST
by
chmst
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-28 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson