"Texas Bill Would Require Voting Machine Paper Trail" [Another Courageous Patriotic Republican]

Government Technology ^ | 26 February 2007 | Wayne Hanson

[lifelong_republican]

"A voting system that consists of direct recording electronic voting machines," says the text, "may not be used in an election unless the system produces a voter-verified permanent paper record suitable for a manual audit." In addition, the bill as written would require the system to allow the voter to inspect and verify the paper record before the electronic vote is recorded and provide an opportunity to alter the electronic vote after viewing the paper record..."

[Mr. Brightside]

Your posts, and your take on this issue, simply make me say, "Hmmmm."

That's all I am saying.

[KC_Conspirator]

You, being new here, have posted only about ONE subject, which happens to be a key hot topic for Democrats who think that 2000 and 2004 were stolen by Rove and Diebold.

Thats exactly my point. Furthermore, electronic voting has been a sore spot for liberals who have not be able to commit massive voter fraud in places like Florida.

[lifelong_republican]

The Republican Governor of Florida wants to get rid of the faulty electronic 'voting' systems.

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/31/State/Crist_wants_touch_scr.shtml

[The_Victor]

Massive vote fraud is easiest with paperless electronics, as well as easiest to conceal.

It's a lot easier to make copies of reciepts altered in Photoshop than it is to hack the computers/networks.

[lifelong_republican]

You make another great point.

We need to get more people directly involved, and supervised by the public, in management of elections.

[lifelong_republican]

Why don't you trust yourself to create your own ballot?

[lifelong_republican]

Real conservatives don't jump into paying exhorbitant costs for unproven immature technology.

[KC_Conspirator]

Yeah, I read your earlier propganda post about this topic on FR. By pointing out he's a "Republican", you hope that somehow that means that I will join your subterfuge efforts and not see through the fascade.

[lifelong_republican]

Why would faked copies of receipts matter?

The tallies can be manipulated no matter what the receipts say.

[KC_Conspirator]

You are far from a 'Real America'. I think you are a democrat fraud through and through.

[lifelong_republican]

I notice that you have never disputed any of the facts that I have posted.

So you don't want to create your own ballot. You believe you can't do so on your own.

I hope you get more self-reliant and more patriotic.

[lifelong_republican]

You say you think, but your ad hominem fallacies are not indicative of real thought.

Your unwillingness to take responsibility for your own vote isn't particularly patriotic of you, either.

[KC_Conspirator]

I have disputed every single premise you have concocted, my my little hate-America, Diebold conspiring, leftist posing a Freeper.

[Calpernia]

ping

[lifelong_republican]

You try to make claims but don't substantiate them.

You haven't disputed the findings of NIST, or the GAO, or the computer scientists who point out that the electronic systems are unreliable and vulnerable.

Do you even know what an MTBF is?

[The_Victor]

If the tally of the receipt doesn't match the electronic tally, it will be reported as proof of fraud. You would never have to hack the voting machines in order to invalidate an election you didn't like the outcome of. Just produce a bunch of extra receipts. Quick, simple, and lowtech, any idiot could do it.

[SJSAMPLE]

Thanks.
I don't know if this is any more confusion than the lever/punch system, but I hope it doesn't give the retarded another reason to wail and moan.

[lifelong_republican]

Nobody's going to know that the receipts don't match the tallies, because full audits aren't required.

The receipts are never actually counted.

[Sarastro]

The flame war on this tread is puerile.

The way the votes are counted is important and worthy of debate. But I suspect more elections are stolen by having ineligible voters vote than by changing the ballots. If, on a scale of 100, the security over counting ballots is 98, then the security over registering voters and authenticating them on election day is 30.

[The_Victor]

Nobody's going to know that the receipts don't match the tallies, because full audits aren't required.

The receipts are never actually counted.

Then why have the receipt? If some Diebold conspirator wants to alter votes, then they just program the voting machine to change them after the receipt is printed. The voter never knows and the paper trail is pointless.