Posted on 02/26/2007 9:33:54 AM PST by 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..."
(Excerpt) Read more at govtech.net ...
1. You cast your vote in the eVote machine, but it's isn't yet recorded.
2. A paper receipt is issued.
3. The user wants to change their vote, so they change it on the Evote machine.
Do they get another receipt? What happens to the original receipt?
Suits me.
You are a single issue poster, aren't you?
Think about it. A system that allows tracking a vote for Smith to voter Jones destroys the secrecy of the ballot. Which in turn opens up a major can of worms: voters that cannot keep their votes secret will be subject to all manner of illegitimate pressure. Listhing the many forms which this pressure will take is left as an exercise for the reader.
The voter should review a paper print of their choices, sign it and verbally swear to a certified elections officer that they have reviewed, signed and approved what just went into the box.
I suspect he is a not only a single issue poster, but a democrat plant. The main reason for going back to paper ballots is so that democrats can steal elections again by committing massive fraud.
A paper trail would shut up all the whiney, conspiracy theory(even when they win an election) dems, so I'm all for it. Plus, when the thing is about 1/10000th as secure as a freakin ATM, then there is an inherent problem.
"I suspect he is a not only a single issue poster, but a democrat plant."
Many around these days. This guy is definitely one.
A paper trail? Seems to me that the ballots in Florida--the ones with the hanging chads--were also a paper trail. Even with a "paper trail" through some other means, you're gonna have "whiney Dems" complaining about stray marks, half punches, and partial signatures. It's what they do best, when they don't win.
So a paperless electronic system isn't subject to fraud? It's always going to be a problem. That's why, as Stalin said, "those who vote decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything."
Malarkey. The answer is called "machine scanned paper ballots" (note NOT punch cards). Solves all the problems.
We use'em here in Pierce County, WA, and they're great.
Malarkey.
No, this is the problem.
How do you think vote cheaters are caught? There is no real secret ballot in this country save for what you may or may not tell your neighbors. At best election boards pretend not to keep track of any particular voter's tally but one's vote ballot is generally serial numbered and in some districts that number is written down next to your name....especially where the old pull lever machines are used. (You walk into the machine to vote and the workers check a counter number that registers on the side of the machine, they then write this number down next to your name. When I called the workers on it they replied they had to do this as a check against multiple voting or cheating)
You are bringing up excellent questions.
The printed 'receipt' won't necessarily match the tallies, either.
It'd suit us all a lot better to create our own real ballots for ourselves, and watch them get counted.
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.