Posted on 12/11/2006 5:07:39 AM PST by lifelong_republican
Paper ballots created and confirmed by the voter which can be counted and recounted under public observation, for $1.25 apiece, or secret electronic processes which offer no guarantee of any accuracy or observation and can't be recounted at all, for over $10.00 apiece ...
Electronic isn't really voting and it's no certainly no bargain.
I thought they already took care of the people who fixed the elections...
I'm not sure that counting and recounting is really a great advance, though. As Edward G. Robinson said to Humphrey Bogart in Key Largo: "Then after the election, we count the votes. And if they don't turn out right, we recount them. And recount them again. Until they do."
Nary a peek after wards.
That's called "In your face, fool!! hahaha." "gotcha, sooookers!:
Your comment is excellent, as humor based on truth tends to be.
The problem with the electronics is that they make it easy and undetectable to rig elections.
The other - and not insignificant - downside is that they are exhorbitantly expensive.
Their proponents support robbing taxpayers to deprive voters of any confidence in elections.
You make an excellent point about the counting and recounting. It isn't rocket science to ensure that it is observed, however, and to such an extent that tampering with counts or recounts could be detected, as long as the electronics are excluded from those processes.
Those who are pointing out the flaws in the electronic 'voting' system are still doing so. It's a non-partisan issue which affects us all.
Actually, I agree.
Even in my work, where electronics have largely supplanted 'hard' copies of data, I still insist on writing it down. I have never needed to reboot a pencil.
Electronic voting offers a multitude of opportunities for rigging an election, and no one can prove otherwise once that has happened.
I expect the Dems to push wholeheartedly for it, not just for the opportunity to make some votes count more than others, but because it is a natural increase in burden on the taxpayer as well.
Until ballots are counted by Ernst & Young or some other independent, non-governmental entity, no one will have any confidence in elections, anyway.
As some witty FReeper once said (and I wish I could remember his name to credit him): "If voting could change anything, they wouldn't let us do it."
Perhaps you advertise for your employer, but that's not getting them any value.
There are many vendors of the votefraud systems, among them Danaher, ES&S, and Sequoia. Not one of the systems has ever been proven to be sufficiently reliable for use in elections. The extreme cost factor is also relevant.
Perhaps you want to be mugged economically and gagged politically. Do you actually care about any real issues? How would you do anything about such concerns, if you had them, without any ability to vote?
How I wish you were right. God knows I do.
Get out all the tinfoil cliches you want, but votes haven't been counted for decades, with the proof being Googled out of existance :<.[Geo. W. Bush and his dad beat the dims at their own game and they've been lying low to make their comeback.]
You are absolutely right and make a number of excellent points.
Computer systems used by banks and merchants always have independently auditable physical records, because they know they will need them.
The corrupt Democrats of the Rendell mob in Pennsylvania have violated the election laws to impose unaccountable and defective systems on the citizens there, at huge cost. They have done everything they could to make sure that the voters can not confirm their votes or the counts.
The burdens on the taxpayers are astronomical.
Your insights are appreciated.
Another Freeper also mentioned that the votes could be counted on a precinct level, hourly. They could be counted as they came in and in front of video surveillance.
Part of our duty to defend our country is to defend our votes.
It really is a non-partisan issue, because it matters to everyone who votes, regardless of party affiliation.
That is not to say that individuals or groups within any party would be immune to the temptation to take advantage of such easy and undetectable vote-rigging. With the corrupt Democrats of the Rendell mob in Pennsylvania, it is obvious that they are deliberately setting up to subvert elections.
There's an old saying about certain things which should be done to "keep honest people honest", or something to that effect. Past incidences of election fraud will never justify decreases in vigilance to prevent future ones.
Got proof?
Show me the program code. The election boards at every level have cleared these systems for correct operation. Unless you have proof of the code that switches votes, you're just cluttering up the forum.
If you want to believe that they'd be suitable, it's on you to substantiate that.
You don't have proof that they work.
Nobody does.
The testing is inadequate. The systems were 'cleared' without sufficient scrutiny.
You don't have proof that they work
Every county election board has to run a test of the voting system to clear it for proper function.
It is up to you to demonstrate that the tests are inadequate.
Got proof? I see your answer is still, "no."
The tests have already been proven to be inadequate.
"E-Voting Tests Get Failing Grade"
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65535,00.html
Systems subjected to such 'tests' subsequently threw away thousands of votes and failed in numerous other ways, in multiple instances, in fact.
Have you seen the reports on the problems from the GAO and from NIST? They confirm that the problems exist, also.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf
http://vote.nist.gov/DraftWhitePaperOnSIinVVSG2007-20061120.pdf
Your articles do not substantiate this accusation. Security issues are not the same thing a fraud.
Got proof? Still "no."
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.