Posted on 02/20/2007 4:15:13 AM PST by lifelong_republican
"...the machines' lack of security make them unsuitable for use..."
(Excerpt) Read more at itnews.com.au ...
Exactly. It was the Libs who screamed and hollered for electronic voting following the 2000 Presidential election. Now that they have it, they're screaming and hollering to go back. Logic indicates they found that electronic voting prevented them from manipulating the vote as they had in the past.
The safe bet is No, No and No. Thus, states should only certify machines with this in mind. These tamper-proof, and neither were the Diebold machines that were proven insecure by another Princeton professor.
Actually, you haven't in any way disputed the method of doing the study or its findings.
The opportunity to subvert elections is actually greater with the electronics.
Two words: paper ballots.
Actually, the electronics are not only vulnerable to tampering, they're extremely unreliable.
Moreover, voters trying to cast their votes for Senator Rick Santorum, in this past election, saw their votes being switched by the machines.
Paper ballots aren't perfect, but they are more reliable, and it's detectable when someone tampers with them. They allow for audits and recounts which aren't possible with the electronics.
Please don't bother to post to me. I consider your assertions ludicrous.
Agreed !
You haven't disputed what I've reported.
That's largely because I'm merely presenting facts.
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.