Posted on 01/05/2007 3:46:06 AM PST by lifelong_republican
There's never been a perfect election system. We never seemed to have a problem understanding that until Algore's temper tantrum.
I find it interesting that Democrats seemed concerned with a flawless voting system, but not concerned at all with voter ID laws that would prevent fraudulent voting.
The chads were a problem, so we changed to electronic...at a great cost to most states. Now the electronic are a problem.
If we wrote down our vote on a piece of paper, dipped our finger in purple ink, and then waited days to get the results counted...somebody would question those counting the votes.
I vote we end secret ballots.
No one is claiming that any system would be perfect, only pointing out that the electronics make fraud quick, easy, and undetectable.
The concern with ID is valid, indeed, and the problem is that we don't have identification of those who can manipulate the electronic voting systems.
The voters shouldn't be deprived of ballots they create and confirm for themselves, and those physical ballots can be observed via intense security measures throughout the counting process.
You make a very salient point about the secrecy of the ballot. Originally, voters made their choices in public, and the privacy issue didn't arise until after the Civil War, if I recall correctly.
I'm proud of my vote, which is a good thing, since the voting machines where I voted were positioned so that they could be read by others. Of course anyone in the parking lot could check via the wireless connections as people went in to vote, too.
Are you saying the wireless network the voting machines were on was visible and readable to the public?!?
Yes, the 'voting' system forced on us by corrupt Democrats in PA has and uses a very vulnerable wireless connection. Not only can people in the parking lots outside the polls see what's going on, they can change what's going on.
Never underestimate the stupidity of a poll worker.
I don't know if the push for electronic voting machines came primarily from Republicans, dems, or elections professionals, but there are some serious arguments in favor of them. They eliminate stray marks on ballots, which are sometimes an issue. They eliminate all the chad nonsense. They eliminate overvotes. You can build in a prompt to make sure undervotes are intentional, not accidental. IOW, they go a long way towards idiot-proofing ballots, and when you idiot-proof the ballots you take away innumerable opportunities for dead-of-night shenanigans by crooked counters.
As to the "fraud is undetectable on electronic machines" argument: if someone tampers with the counter on an old, pull-the-lever machine, that fraud is undetectable (except by statistical inference) once the deed is done. If someone spikes punchcard ballots, fouls paper ballots, stuffs a ballot box, or swaps out paper or punchcard ballots, the deed is undetectable (except by statistical inference) once done. I am having some difficulty understanding why electronic voting is supposed to be less secure. I understand that the dems have been making smoke to contest the legitimacy of elections in which they lost, but that doesn't make it so. I'm not sure there's anything more involved with this complaint.
The basic checks on fraud in any voting system are a good voter registration list, voter id at the polls, controls on absentee ballots, etc. Those checks remain the same regardless of the mechanics of the ballot.
Oh my God.....
Wireless networks are easily closed using some type of firewall, and the data is easily encrypted.
Hell, if it was as open as you say it was, a knowledgeable person with a laptop could intercept and manipulate the data. All one would need to do is ARP poison the network(tell the server that your laptop is a voting machine, and tell the voting machines your laptop is the server). I can't get more specific than that without some knowledge of how the voting machines communicate on the application level, and it would probably be illegal to say such things. ;-)
Interesting...but you'd have to have voters without malice. If a group decided to overturn an election that was obviously going to the "other guy," all they'd have to do is agree to collectively vote differently on the two ballots. It might not give their guy the victory, but it could create havoc and unnecessary recounts.
Source, please?
I believe Wimax digital wireless supplies the voting technology.
Correct me if I'm wrong Lifelong.
The poll workers get a lot of unwarranted blame because the racketeers and corrupt officials won't take personal responsibility for the problems with the equipment they have wrongfully forced on the pollworkers, and, worse, on the voters.
I don't fault users of Microsoft products, for example, when Windows or some application over it fails due to faulty design and low security.
Why dont you work at the polls and try to add your intelligence to the process. The electoral board is always looking for poll workers. The pay is little the day is long. The accusations of stupidity are always present. I am sure your district could use someone of your obvious superior intellect.
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.