Recent Political Change May Positively Affect GA

It doesn't matter what you believe or history or the "facts" are. The
majority of voters went into the voting booth and said "lets send the
president (and his supporters) a message". Kachung!

I worked the polls all day on Nov 7. I've got to tell you
that a very large number of the voters [even in an up scale
educated area] are idiots. As an example, after explaining
a woman that there were four pages on the ballot and the
VOTE button would be in-active until she had looked at and
voted on each page and then that the machine would require
that she review all four pages and vote again and then
confirm that she had voted the way she wanted before the
machine would actually register her vote. I asked her if
she had any questions and she said "No." A few minutes
later I saw her standing at the machine with a perplexed
look. I went over and asked if she had a problem or a
question. She said "The machine didn't let me vote!"
She had just scrolled through all four pages, not made any
selections, pushed VOTE. Then she reviewed her blank ballot
and voted it again. Then she "read" the last question and
pressed the CONFIRM button.

We gave her a provisional ballot, which then had the reason
that she had voted a blank on the machine. I doubt that the
ballot will be counted, since there were no close races and
she did vote. I would have said that these new machines
would make a "Palm Beach" ballot impossible this woman
proved again that idiots can break any machine or system.



"Doug" wrote in message
ups.com...
| It doesn't matter what you believe or history or the
"facts" are. The
| majority of voters went into the voting booth and said
"lets send the
| president (and his supporters) a message". Kachung!
|

I worked the polls all day on Nov 7. I've got to tell you
that a very large number of the voters [even in an up scale
educated area] are idiots. As an example, after explaining
a woman that there were four pages on the ballot and the
VOTE button would be in-active until she had looked at and

Snip of incredible story

Here in Iowa, for the first time, we had the choice of voting either
electronically, using a bone-simple touch screen, or on paper.

Amazingly (to me) I was the ONLY person in line to choose to vote
electronically, while everyone else in this VERY left-wing area (the
last Republican elected here was in 1957) chose paper -- no doubt
because of all the liberal media gibberish about how the Republicans
were going to "steal" the election by using Diebold's computers...

What was really hilarious (to me) was that the people who voted on
paper were then directed (as always) to feed their ballot into a (you
guessed it!) computer tabulator! I just about died laughing.

My night manager, after being told this story, went to vote in a
different precinct. He had to *ask* to vote electronically, and their
response was "Why would you want to do *that*?" They were actively
discouraging the use of the new system.

And, as usual, no attempt was made to verify that I was, indeed, the
voter I said I was. Once again, I could easily have voted multiple
times, in multiple precincts. Yet we're spending thousands
(millions?) of dollars "tightening up the system" by investing in
computerized voting machines.

It is to weep.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The machines we use keeps two paper records and two
electronic records. Only the sworn poll clerk has the
device needed to turn a machine on and that is for each
voter.
We also have paper ballots and the scanner. The point is
that canvassing clerks can look at and count paper if there
is a need to recount.

Here is a video instruction
http://www.sedgwickcounty.org/elections/index.html link on
the page.

If you have honest poll workers, you'll get honest
elections. If you have crooks, any method will get crooked
results.




"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
| I worked the polls all day on Nov 7. I've got to tell
you
| that a very large number of the voters [even in an up
scale
| educated area] are idiots. As an example, after
explaining
| a woman that there were four pages on the ballot and the
| VOTE button would be in-active until she had looked at
and
|
| Snip of incredible story
|
| Here in Iowa, for the first time, we had the choice of
voting either
| electronically, using a bone-simple touch screen, or on
paper.
|
| Amazingly (to me) I was the ONLY person in line to choose
to vote
| electronically, while everyone else in this VERY left-wing
area (the
| last Republican elected here was in 1957) chose paper --
no doubt
| because of all the liberal media gibberish about how the
Republicans
| were going to "steal" the election by using Diebold's
computers...
|
| What was really hilarious (to me) was that the people who
voted on
| paper were then directed (as always) to feed their ballot
into a (you
| guessed it!) computer tabulator! I just about died
laughing.
|
| My night manager, after being told this story, went to
vote in a
| different precinct. He had to *ask* to vote
electronically, and their
| response was "Why would you want to do *that*?" They
were actively
| discouraging the use of the new system.
|
| And, as usual, no attempt was made to verify that I was,
indeed, the
| voter I said I was. Once again, I could easily have voted
multiple
| times, in multiple precincts. Yet we're spending
thousands
| (millions?) of dollars "tightening up the system" by
investing in
| computerized voting machines.
|
| It is to weep.
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|

Jay Honeck wrote:

Amazingly (to me) I was the ONLY person in line to choose to vote
electronically, while everyone else in this VERY left-wing area (the
last Republican elected here was in 1957) chose paper -- no doubt
because of all the liberal media gibberish about how the Republicans
were going to "steal" the election by using Diebold's computers...

it is not gibberish that these machine are unreliable, and so easily
hacked that a chimpanzee can do it (as it has been demonstrated); I would
certainly never accept using these pieces of crap to vote -- note: I know
a thing or two about computer science -- and would use paper if given
a chance if only as a form of protest; the sooner these machines are
taken offline and discarded, the better, and one way to achieve this
is to refuse using them.


What was really hilarious (to me) was that the people who voted on
paper were then directed (as always) to feed their ballot into a (you
guessed it!) computer tabulator! I just about died laughing.

except that these voters' votes can be recounted if need be, since
they did leave a verifiable paper trace unlike *your* vote...


--Sylvain

except that these voters' votes can be recounted if need be, since
they did leave a verifiable paper trace unlike *your* vote...

The touch screen computer printed a hard copy of my vote, which was
verified by the operator.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

except that these voters' votes can be recounted if need be, since
they did leave a verifiable paper trace unlike *your* vote...

The touch screen computer printed a hard copy of my vote, which was
verified by the operator.


which model of machine were you using? are you saying that you do
not have private voting in your location and that the operator actually
get to see what each voter did? that sounds odd. From what I understand
of the touch screen machines, the thing prints out an initial tape when
booted up, that is supposed to show that no vote has been entered (but
is in fact meaningless as have been demonstrated multiple times) and then
another tape at the end of the poll that shows a tally of the votes entered
(and which of course can easily be faked as well); but no print out of
individual votes...

--Sylvain

The iVotronic machine prints a random [secret] paper tape of
every action the machine takes. It also records each vote
electronically. The "zero tape" and closing paper tapes
also show the totals. These can be checked by people to
that the totals add up, from the signatures in the register
book, to the individual machine and the collected reports.
Just like double entry bookkeeping, it gives a cross
reference for each operation. But to identify an individual
voters VOTE, would be very difficult.

As a result of ballot secrecy, I don't "know" that any of
the ballots I have cast since 1967 has ever actually been
counted. I have been the first voter at a precinct and was
asked to look inside all the ballot boxes just so if there
was a question, I could say they were empty. I have worked
a half dozen elections, some with one kind of machine or
another and now two with the iVotronic machines.

The biggest problem with voting is, stupid voters who don't
pay any attention until two days before the election.




"Sylvain" wrote in message
...
| Jay Honeck wrote:
|
| except that these voters' votes can be recounted if
need be, since
| they did leave a verifiable paper trace unlike *your*
vote...
|
| The touch screen computer printed a hard copy of my
vote, which was
| verified by the operator.
|
|
| which model of machine were you using? are you saying
that you do
| not have private voting in your location and that the
operator actually
| get to see what each voter did? that sounds odd. From
what I understand
| of the touch screen machines, the thing prints out an
initial tape when
| booted up, that is supposed to show that no vote has been
entered (but
| is in fact meaningless as have been demonstrated multiple
times) and then
| another tape at the end of the poll that shows a tally of
the votes entered
| (and which of course can easily be faked as well); but
no print out of
| individual votes...
|
| --Sylvain

The touch screen computer printed a hard copy of my vote, which was
verified by the operator.

So, now the "operator" (presumably a person) knows how you voted? (how
else to verify?). Or do you mean that the operator verified that a
piece of paper came out? (did you verify what was on that piece of paper?)

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

So, now the "operator" (presumably a person) knows how you voted? (how
else to verify?). Or do you mean that the operator verified that a
piece of paper came out? (did you verify what was on that piece of paper?)

He "knows" how I voted the same way that the election officials "know"
how I voted with the paper ballots. Or did you think they can't look
at those, too?

Of course, they're "x's" on a piece of paper that must be lined up with
a template in order to interpret what they mean. All he did was
verify that it printed out. He didn't look at it in an attempt to see
how I voted.

Not that it matters -- he has no idea who I am, or how many times I've
voted. Until mandatory IDs are required to vote, the system is an
utter sham.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"