you simply do not know what you are talking about. i work elections. the current machines are fine, without any paper trails. no receipts needed. there is a legit reason to oppose paper reciepts, they waste time and money and serve zero purpose. look, everything isnt a conpiracy. i hate the god loving right wingers more than you do, but that doesnt mean anyone is stealing elections. the jesus freak idiots are voting bush and they are loyal and are serious about getting to the polls, it sucks for you, but it is true.
are you really that pathetic? You are truly and educated idiot. you know just enough to confuse yourself into believing anything you want.
sorry, martin, but you simply have no basis, whatsoever, upon which to declare that the current machines are fine. How would YOU know? You can't and don't. You see neither the software that records the votes at the machines, nor the software that adds the votes at the central server. Bev Harris demonstrated quite conclusively on national TV that it is very easy for one person sitting at the central server to change an entire election within a matter of 2 minutes. Only paper receipts can give us confidence in election results. Only paper receipts can guarantee that the software is written and implemented correctly. Why are you willing to accept votes on faith? Why are you so eager to accept that vote machine manufacturers would not succumb to the temptation of fraud when their own economic interests are at stake? The expense of paper is a small price to pay for election confidence.
Ok, I'll bite. What does the paper receipt prove? I don't get where that gives us any more confidence in our election process.
Is Barak Obama(sp) going to be ready in 08 or is he a 12 or 16 candidate? Personally he reminds me of Eddie Murphy in the "Distinguised Gentlemen." I expect by 08 to see the right drift to extemeism and the left to drift back twords moderation and see the roles reverse. It may take longer.
Today there were news stories about his new book deal. I get annoyed when I see politicians profit off of book deals and such while they are still in office and/or are not retired.
incorrect. i am the guy who opens the machines, and consolidates the votes, as well as calls the numbers in to the newspaper. there are paper printouts from each machine, of which multiple copies are made and one goes with the commissioner in charge to the central office, and the other is locked inside the machines at the location. also the results remain on the cartridges from each machine, as well as the consolidated count cartridge. so to screw with the results, you have to change the cartridges, as well as both copies of printouts from two separate locations, with two different keys to open the innards of the machines, and steal the printout from inside the machine, as well as the other copy which the commissioner in charge has, along with the keys. plus the cartridges are some sort of proprietary thing that you cant just take home and hook to your pc and alter, they are like huge atari cartridges. i dunno why you think you have any clue what you are talking about. there are paper printouts, two of them, for each machine, as well as another printout of the consolidated count. no magic man in any central office can change that. edit: i forgot there is another paper copy of the consolidated count from all the machines that is posted in a conspicuous location outside the polling place on election night.
Sorry, Martin, but you still haven't addressed the issue. Have you ever written a computer program? I'll give you an example of an algorithm: 10: Get input from touchscreen from voter #1300 20: Show voter #1300 what candidate he wished to vote for on the touchscreen 30: If voter number is evenly divisible by 20, count the vote for George Bush regardless of what the voter wanted and was shown in step 20 40: On the summary total printout, use the vote count as determined by step 30 It can be as easy as that, and you the poll worker has no way, whatsoever, to know any different because the software is proprietary and you're not allowed to view it. Such a simple algorithm can swing an election from 53-47 Kerry to 52-48 Bush, and can explain why exit polls were 5% off from the final vote tabulations. As for your contention that a central compiler can't change the results from your own precinct, I can assure you that is not always the case. It's certainly not the case here in my precinct in South Carolina, where the only information available to the local poll workers was the total number of votes cast, not votes by candidate. After the polls were closed the poll workers pressed a button that transmitted the machine results to Columbia. Now you tell me how the steps you described would prevent the simple computer algorithm I just presented. They COULDN'T. Only paper receipts can verify that the vote cast by the voter in step 10 actually counted for the candidate that was displayed in step 20. Seriously, would you put up with ATM bank transactions that didn't give you paper receipts of your transactions? Would you trust a bank that didn't give you receipts? I don't think you would. Why should you trust corporations who manufacture voting machines to be honest with you, when their own government contracts are dependent upon which candidate wins the election?
I'd be willing to bet if you look into it, you'd find out Dick Cheney owns stock in the company that makes voting machines. But he probably also owns some paper and pencil companies too, so the paper ballot method could also be corrupted. Lets face it, Kerry was facing impsossible odds. The only way he had a chance was if we somehow voted using ketchup and other condiments. The fix was on from day one. I'm outraged. :cuss:
