"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 06 Mar 2004 17:03:57 GMT, (Dav1936531) wrote:

From: "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."


I have to pretty much agree with this article. Fully electronic voting
machines are a horrible, horrible idea.

Absolutely. The lack of a paper receipt of how a vote was cast is the
first
step towards creating a "banana republic" wherein elections are stolen
and
fraud rules. Trustworthy recounts will be impossible.

If Bush wants to make Constitutional amendments, amend the Constitution
so that
a paper receipt is required in all votes at Federal, State, and possibly
even
the local level.

And I am truly concerned that the electorate of the US doesn't seem to be
too
concerned about the potential for abuse these voting computers represent.
Dave

You guys have to be kidding. Or, you've never paid attention during
the years of voting before an electronic terminal. Where have you been
keeping all of your previous paper voting receipts? Oh, you forgot
that you've never before gotten such a document?

When I grew up in Chicago (that citadel of Democratic democracy and
vast Republican wasteland), we voted with large mechanical machines.
You entered a big telephone booth sort of kiosk and clicked little
levers down to select your candidate, then moved a huge railroad
switch sort of master lever to "cast" your ballot. No receipt, no
returns. All done and all the records are in the big metal box.

Now, after the brouhaha about hanging chads, you want technology to
fix the problem, but not really?

So, you mark with a pencil (a #2 pencil) and scribble a spot in an
oval. You put the paper through a slot into a box to be read by a
Scantron. Are you sure that happens today? Are you sure that box makes
it down from the polling place to the County courthouse? It always
has.

Paranoia serves no useful purpose. With both sides observing elections
and all players buying into the system, the reliability of high tech
voting shouldn't be dangerously compromised.

And, regarding the original author's piece--does it make a difference
where the machine was made? Is there a lot of significance if the
software is noted as version 4.2.4 on the back and only 4.2 on the
screen? Gimme a break.

No, you're absolutely right, and I don't think that paranoia is helpful
either. But this technology has too many ways to screw up (and here in NYC
we still use those big telephone booth lever/crank things). At least
somewhere there needs to be a paper trail for all involved parties to audit.

There was a large conference of IT professionals and software industry
bigwigs who came out strongly against these all-electronic systems,
basically saying that there would be no possible way to go through all the
code on these machines and detect any tampering or design flaw with enough
accuracy to base elections on. And even so, it would be too complex for
laymen (the people) to actually go through and check themselves. We would
always be relying on some kind of professional (who may or may not have an
agenda) to examine these records for us and give them a thumbs up or down.
Regardless of the result, there will always be far too many questions left
unanswerable.

Will a paper record, regardless of what the software people say, ordinary
people can subpoena the records and count the votes by hand. Since they are
machine printed, there are no doubts about hanging chads and such. And
people should get a copy of the paper record as well, so that they can
verify their vote. A simple printer with carbon paper connected to these
machines would solve all the problems. One copy goes to the voter, the other
straight into a box in the machine.