Recent Political Change May Positively Affect GA

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"

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?

We use mechanical machines. But were we to use a paper ballot, I would
not hand it over face up. I would put it in the ballot box. The
operator does not have to see what's on it. The ballot box is locked.
Sure, the operator could sneak it open, but that would be a fairly
obvious action, and would require him to figure out which ballot was mine.

He didn't look at it in an attempt to see how I voted.

Probably not. Most people wouldn't even be interested. But in certain
election situations the prospect that one could could serve as
intimidation of certain people.

he has no idea who I am

That's not always the case, and wouldn't be the case if it mattered.

Until mandatory IDs are required to vote, the system is an
utter sham.

Mandatory IDs have their own problems. What about the voter signing on
a form (like a petition) in order to vote? If the losing party wants to
claim voter fraud, the signatures could be matched up. (Otherwise it
doesn't matter).

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.

On 11 Nov 2006 05:21:39 -0800, Jay Honeck wrote:

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?

ahh, well. they _can_? *wow* I suspected that your system is screwed, but I
didn't expect it to be f*cked that way.

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.

yes it is. and it is more of a sham that you accept it they way it is.

#m
--
Enemy Combatant http://itsnotallbad.com/

Jay Honeck wrote:
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?

I was once a volunteer for a local election and, no, you can't; it
was the old fashion system that works as follows: each voter picks
up a ballot from each candidate, goes into the little booth provided
for their privacy, choose one of the ballot and place it into the
envelop; discard or keep the other ballots, then seals the envelop,
goes to the location where the box is located; the volunteer in
charge of the box verify the person's voting card, and that it
matches the corresponding entry in the register, stamps the voting
card and checks off the name in the register, push the lever that
opens the slot in the box and the voter places the envelop in the
box.

Low tech and primitive, but privacy is protected, only people
entitled to vote can vote, votes can be counted and recounted,
i.e., the whole thing is traceable, everybody involved, from
the dumbest of the voters to all the officials and volunteers
involved can understand the process and how things works; everything
is done out in the open for anyone who want to see (including the
counting of the votes -- actually good fun, never lacks volunteers);

And it is surprisingly fast; it does scale pretty well actually;
the more voters, the more volunteers.

And no, none of the election officials know who voted for whom.

voted. Until mandatory IDs are required to vote, the system is an
utter sham.

the problem is that mandatory IDs will only prevent individual voters
from committing fraud; it certainly ought to be done, but I am
far more concerned by a system that makes it extraordinarily easy
for the party in power to fraud on a massive and global scale...

--Sylvain

Jay Honeck wrote:
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.

Didn't they ask who you were when they handed you a ballot (or whatever
the equivalent computer thingy is)?

Until mandatory IDs are required to vote, the system is an
utter sham.

Absolutely. Just think of the thousands of times that somebody's shown
up to vote only to be told, "Hey! You already voted!" The chorus of those
poor impersonated voters is what's driving the calls for internal
passports. Wait, there weren't thousands? No? Hundreds? Any? No? Gee,
you'd think even with a 40% turnout, this would have happened somewhere...
No? Gosh, if that's not happening, what other reason could there be
to mandate ids for voting? What could it be...

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


--
Don Poitras