Replies

electronics are unreliable

As is paper.

vulnerable

as is paper

needlessly complex

To a computing-illiterate moron perhaps.

exhorbitantly expensive

They're cheaper.

inconvenient for the voters

Inconevenient only to imbeciles - convenient for people who know what a PC is.

unauditable

LOL! They're more auditable than paper.

as the General Accounting Office of the United Stats Congress has noted in an official report, unsuitable for use in elections

You're going to have to cite this preposterous claim.

Would you insist that the earth must be flat in the event that anyone you could imagine would be from a faction separate from your own says it is spherical?

You've lost all coherence - which was a shaky area for you from the get-go.

I'd said that electronics are unreliable.

Then you said:

"As is paper."

Yet the electronics are far more unreliable than paper. Paper doesn't fail because of a powerline aberration or a hardware failure or a software anomaly.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting_2.html

I'd noted that electronics are vulnerable.

Then you said:

"as is paper"

Yet the vulnerability of paper requires observable local actions by those who would tamper with it, while with the electronics the manipulation can be centralized, widespread, and undetectable.

I'd mentioned that the electronics are needlessly complex.

To which you said:

"To a computing-illiterate moron perhaps."

Do you believe that all voters are computer users, or that even if they were, they should have to use defective computers instead of voting?

Yet that's not even the real point there: the term "complexity" refers to pencil and paper being a simpler system, even including counters and video security for the ballots.

I pointed out that the electronics are exhorbitantly expensive.

Then you said:

"They're cheaper."

Actually, the electronics are vastly more expensive than hand-counted paper ballots.

Here's a typical example:

"the high-tech elections wound up costing as much as 25 per cent more than regular voting, chief electoral officer Marcel Blanchet said in his report."

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=9942d279-c6e0-402f-a3e3-8155ff88968e&k=53858

I'd added that electronics are inconvenient for the voters. Then you said:

"Inconevenient only to imbeciles - convenient for people who know what a PC is."

Actually, when the electronics fail and people have to stand in line for hours that has nothing to do with whether those voters would be good with computers or not. When someone tampers with the electronics and people lose their votes despite going to the trouble of visiting the polls - as with the massive undervote rates of the electronics - that is effectively turning people away from the polls despite their intent of using them.

I'd informed you that the electronics are unauditable. To which you said:

"LOL! They're more auditable than paper."

Had you any evidence for your statement? It is proven wrong at any bank, for one example.

I mentioned the GAO report. I've subsequently mentioned the NIST report. Then you said:

You're going to have to cite this preposterous claim.

Here's the GAO report:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf

Here's the NIST release:

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/federal-agency-doubts-electronic-voting/20061201232109990001?_ccc=3&cid=842

I had asked:

Would you insist that the earth must be flat in the event that anyone you could imagine would be from a faction separate from your own says it is spherical?

Then you said:

"You've lost all coherence - which was a shaky area for you from the get-go."

My words stand. If only yours could.