Posted on 10/23/2006 7:18:25 PM PDT by wouldntbprudent
What will happen in November? Are electronic voting machines secure? One need not believe in a vast plot to rig the elections to take those questions seriously — and to be pessimistic about the answers.
When Princeton researchers announced in September that the Diebold Accuvote TS voting machine software was vulnerable to tampering, it was the first time that independent computer scientists had confirmed the weaknesses long suspected in techie circles. A few days later, in a minute-and-a-half segment on Fox News, Professor Edward Felten demonstrated just how easy it would be to steal an election (to which the blonde and tanned anchors responded with the canned surprise you'd expect from a demonstration of a new food processor).
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Mmmkay, they're already laying the groundwork for the "we were robbed!" wail.
And as if the Rats are not the king of stealing elections. They do know of what they speak!
Absolutely... they are going to claim foul... but it makes them look even more looney... so let them.
Anything from CBS news is automatically discounted as false until it shows up in ten other major news distributors, not including CNN, ABC, NBC, PBS, LAT, NYT or the Boston Globe.
They ought to use paper ballots and scanners. These machines
are bad if for no other reason than they are so controversial
and undermine confidence in elections where they are used.
Sure, lets go back to hanging and pregnant chads while we're at it
"undermine confidence"
Because of constant media hype, and failure for MSM to really look at what a hoax the Princeton study was.
Tell the truth and the confidence comes back.
Why did SEEBS reference a professor as an expert on voting machine vulnerabilities? We know any sub-level DNC operative is a resident expert with a boatload of practical in the field experience at rigging free elections.
How about teams of psychologists to look at undervoted ballots to determine the intent of the voter? That almost worked.
bwwwwaaaaahhhh!
Call the waaaaaaammmmmbulance!
Actually, it's not false. It's "fake, but accurate."
Check out the "expert" quoted in the article: he says something like (**whine**) "at least with hanging chads we knew what we didn't know."
Just like the Rats. Same reasoning as "well, we had *good intentions* . . ."
Golly, that was some kind of ride, I tell ya.
I used the punch cards for years. There is no problem with
hanging chads IF the voter looks at the ballot before they turn it in.
Genevieve Smith is an editorial intern at Harper's magazine.
Soooo true!
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.