Man Sentenced For Bashing Voting Machine (Crazed Liberal Says He Was "Obligated to Destroy It")

The Morning Call ^ | July 26, 2007 | Debbie Garlicki

[El Sordo]

It was evil! EEEVVVIIILLLLL!!!

[vetsvette]

I’m surprised that the nutroot didn’t claim his rights to freedom of speech.

[jimtorr]

Young should have done jail time for interfering with elections.

I’ll bet that he was one of the moonbats agitating for electronic voting machines after the 2000 elections.

[ozzymandus]

No jail time? That sucks. A 43-yr old man who believes what he reads in Rolling Stone shouldn’t be walking around loose.

[SoldierMedic]

Young testified that he thought other people might destroy machines. He said he feared that he would read the next day that ''the nation had risen'' and he had not been a part of that>

Wow. Medication and therapy are greatly needed.

[NonValueAdded]

No psych eval??? the judge lets this mutt walk the street AND remain a registered voter?

<50 % sarc> the least hizhonner could have done is take away his RKBA </sarc>

[2ndDivisionVet]

How about his RKBF (right to keep and bear figurines)? LOL

[GingisK]

I'm puzzled by the fact that these people think the punched card or written ballat is secure. Those counting machines can be rigged as well. So can the people who judge the "hanging chads".

Perhaps they rely on the chads.

[Sherman Logan]

Allentown Patrolman Edward Zucal testified that Young said that using electronic voting machines was a way for Republicans to alter the outcome of elections to overthrow Democrats. Young thought Diebold machines in particular had been programmed to commit voting fraud by Republicans, the police officer said.

What I want to know is who is responsible for the failure of this scheme last fall?

[AustinBill]

Ballot tampering, stuffing, and other types of fraud is as old as voting. The problem is not that one system is “secure” and another isn’t. What is essential in any voting system is that it be very very difficult for small numbers of individuals to commit fraud on a large scale. Having to manipulate millions of paper ballots across widely dispersed geographies imposes physical and logistical challenges which provide inherent assurance that nothing short of “grand conspiracy” involving large numbers of people can statistically alter the result.

Collusion among large numbers of people is almost impossible to conceal. There are too many opportunities for the skein of lies to unravel. This fact is fundamental to the design of antifraud systems. We know we can’t have a perfect system. What is essential to the foundations of democracy, however, is that large scale fraud require the involvement of large numbers of people. That’s our only statistical assurance against “ballot box coups”.

The danger of electronic voting is not that individual systems are more or less secure than paper ones. The danger is that systemic problems might permit small numbers of people to commit large-scale fraud and thus successfully subvert the democratic process.

[rlmorel]

[NTHockey]

“Michael C. Young, who represented himself” - what’s that about a man who represents himself has a fool for a client?

[Arrowhead1952]

I wonder what his DU screen name is.....

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

When figurines are outlawed, only nutroots will have figurines.

If he says, “You can have my figurine when you pry it from my cold dead hands.” my reply is: Offer accepted.

[Clioman]

“he struck the screen of a Diebold-manufactured machine four times with a small figurine.”

A Howard Dean statuette?

[dfwgator]

[Baladas]

If I’d been the judge here, I’d order another psych exam, and bar him from posting at DU indefinetly.

[2ndDivisionVet]

He probably runs DU, so you would be taking away his livelihood!

[JimRed]

It wasn’t Lifelong Republican, was it??

;^)