Owl_Eagle
If what I just wrote made you sad or angry,
it was probably just a joke.
Posted on 01/26/2007 3:03:07 AM PST by lifelong_republican
"Diebold's AccuVote-TS electronic voting machines have lousy security..."
(Excerpt) Read more at informationweek.com ...
Yeah. Those Evil Republicans who own Diebold sure used those security vulnerablilites to good advantage in the last election! We really showed em!
Oh, I forgot. We had to give that one to the Dems, so we can save the real voter fraud for the next presidential election. I am so not ready to hear the Democrats braying about how we stole the election in 2008...
/s
The public should "own" everything associated with the process of elections.
Even when the 'voting' machine companies are owned by those we trust, those machines can be manipulated by those we do not trust.
I'm against electronic voting machines that don't provide a paper ballot that can be checked by the voter - period.
I'm cool with electronic voting, so long as there's some sort of reciept system or a written record to go back to in case of irregularities.
"I'm against electronic voting machines that don't provide a paper ballot that can be checked by the voter - period."
I'm with you, as are many patriotic Americans.
The physical paper ballot, verified by the voter, allows for accurate, observable counts and recounts.
Owl_Eagle
If what I just wrote made you sad or angry,
it was probably just a joke.
You are absolutely right that paper records are necessary. Otherwise, there's no way to do recounts at all. The electronics can provide rapid preliminary tabulations, but the official counts should be based on real physical ballots. The opscan systems provide for this, and they are also far less expensive as well as far more reliable.
I'm not sure what to make of your reply.
(Interestingly, there "Henry Lee" is a recurring name in my own family. Please accept my condolences.)
bttt
"I'm against electronic voting machines that don't provide a paper ballot that can be checked by the voter - period."
If I'm clever enought to program a machine to record the result I want, I can also program the machine to print the result you want.
Unions like paper copies of ballots since they can be used to verify their members vote the union label.
The voter has to check what was printed.
DB and DugwayDuke, you are both making good points.
The printout can be made to look right but the counts can still be different.
Any paper taken out of the polls could be used for vote-selling scams.
It's most reliable for voters to complete paper ballots as the official records. Opscans could be used for preliminary tallies, but since they, too, can be manipulated, the paper (kept properly secured and observed at all times) is still vital for official counts and recounts.
I thought Hugo Chavez' Veneuzela bought out that company and so it is in fact owned by friends of the Democrats.
Or was that a different firm? I thought Deibold was a US company, so now I'm a bit confused.
D
The old lever-style machines with the shower curtain we all used to use didn't print out a paper ballot. We used those for a long time without calls for paper ballots. Yet they were subject to manipulation.
I don't know what you are talking about.
The only levered machines I've used punched holes in a paper ballot that was returned to the election official and placed in the ballot box to be counted.
What did the machines do that you are talking about?
I'm surprised they aren't braying about how they stole the election of 2006.
"The paper ballot that is output by the machine and checked by the voter IS what is counted. Not something the machine reports electronically. The paper ballot is what is counted and what can be recounted. They can use the electronic record as a cross check if they like, but not as the primary source of the vote."
Well stated.
You are quite right that the paper ballot is what must be counted. The most convenient, efficient, rapid, and effective way for voters to generate their ballots is directly, themselves, onto the official paper ballots. The electronics are known to be failure-prone, and nobody gets to vote when a DRE won't boot. With opscan, the voters can just keep doing their civic duty in a prompt manner even if the electronics fail. Opscan is far less expensive, too.
You bring up another very important point.
The Venezuelan 'voting' system is Sequoia.
The systems aren't "Made in the USA", but are built in communist China. They are too-often operated by corrupt Democrats who even take them home before election day.
They can't be made secure, so any number of unknowable parties can tamper undetectably with the tallies.
Even if those of whom we approve happen to own the companies selling the voting equipment, those people can't ensure that the systems won't fail.
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.