[SAJ]

Any electronic balloting system that does not generate paper receipts and a complete audit trail of keystrokes, mouse clicks, and/or screen touches is absolutely 100% guaranteed to be used fraudulently -- likely enough from the get-go -- in, say, 50-60% of precincts/districts using them.

Mark you, it is in no way difficult OR expensive (compared to the initial cost of the systems, most of which are taxpayer ripoffs to start) to provide these safeguards, and anyone saying otherwise is either A) utterly ignorant, B) a liar, C) a corrupt politician or hanger-on, or D) all of the above.

[EEDUDE]

"Mark you, it is in no way difficult OR expensive (compared to the initial cost of the systems, most of which are taxpayer ripoffs to start) to provide these safeguards, and anyone saying otherwise is either A) utterly ignorant, B) a liar, C) a corrupt politician or hanger-on, or D) all of the above."


As a guy who designs this kinds of electronics, I could not agree with you more.

No big deal at all to provide an audit trail.

We do it all the time in banking and other industries, where there is no illusion at all about the possible failure of these electronics.

They DO fail and they CAN be tampered with.

This is a little bit frightening to me. The more I learn about this, the more I like the idea of paper ballots.

Anyone who can't properly use a paper ballot is too stupid to be voting anyway.

[Andy_Stephenson]

anyone saying otherwise is either A) utterly ignorant, B) a liar, C) a corrupt politician or hanger-on, or D) all of the above.

There are 5 talking points now...If they follow them they are definately one of the above.

Andy