Recent Political Change May Positively Affect GA

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:04:38 -0800, Sylvain wrote:

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...

There was a machine at my precinct, along with six tables for marking
paper ballots. There was also a guy there to help people use the
machine.

The guy in line ahead of me requested the machine, so I took a paper
ballot. While I was coloring inside the lines, I could hear the
dialog at the machine. When I left, the two guys were still trying to
back out of a Cinese ballot and get one in English. (The guy in front
of me was NOT identifiably Chinese.)

Apparently, once the Chinese ballot was selected, accidentally or not,
you couldn't get of it. It had to be voted. Otherwise, it was an
invitation to voter fraud.

Beta testing? You could have caught THAT with a walk-through!

Don

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

On the iVotronic machine, a judge or clerk can insert the
PEB [looks like a game cartridge] and the machine will offer
the chance to cancel the current ballot. It requires
several steps, and has a list of reasons, such as voter
request, machine errors and such. The actions are recorded
on paper and the vote tally is reset down one. Then you
re-insert the PEB and get the voter the correct ballot.


"Don Tuite" wrote in
message ...
| On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:04:38 -0800, Sylvain
wrote:
|
| 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...
|
| There was a machine at my precinct, along with six tables
for marking
| paper ballots. There was also a guy there to help people
use the
| machine.
|
| The guy in line ahead of me requested the machine, so I
took a paper
| ballot. While I was coloring inside the lines, I could
hear the
| dialog at the machine. When I left, the two guys were
still trying to
| back out of a Cinese ballot and get one in English. (The
guy in front
| of me was NOT identifiably Chinese.)
|
| Apparently, once the Chinese ballot was selected,
accidentally or not,
| you couldn't get of it. It had to be voted. Otherwise, it
was an
| invitation to voter fraud.
|
| Beta testing? You could have caught THAT with a
walk-through!
|
| Don
|

It is not a Diebold machine and it does clearly show the
ballot twice and it does require the voter verify the ballot
is as they want it three times. Stupid people should not
breed or vote.



"Neil Gould" wrote in message
t...
| Recently, Martin Hotze posted:
|
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote:
|
| Then she reviewed her blank ballot
| and voted it again. Then she "read" the last question
and
| pressed the CONFIRM button.
|
|
| So it is not possible to vote "white" (as it is called
here)?
| means: a valid vote, but without voting anybody?
|
| If I read Jim's message correctly, that is exactly what
this woman did. A
| decently designed user interface would alert the voter
that they are about
| to do such things. However, Diebold has convinced me that
they can't
| design decent hardware *or* software. I'm just very glad
that they aren't
| involved in aviation.
|
| Neil
|
|

There are 1.5 BILLION Muslims on the planet. If only 1/10
of 1% are violent terrorists, it is still 1 million, 500
thousand. Surveys have put the number as high as 10-25% of
the Muslims supporting the terrorists.



"Neil Gould" wrote in message
t...
| Recently, Newps posted:
|
| Mxsmanic wrote:
| "Jim Macklin"
writes:
|
|
| The whole Muslim terrorist world has declared war on
the
| USA.
|
|
| There are only a handful of Muslim terrorists in the
world, and they
| don't represent a sovereign state, so they cannot
formally declare
| war.
|
| Your ability to completely and utterly miss a point is
astounding.
|
| On this, I think Mxsmanic's point is right on target. "The
whole Muslim
| terrorist world..." can most likely be counted in the
thousands, and they
| don't represent (nor are they represented by) a sovereign
state. Of
| course, now there are a lot of "normal Muslims" that are
rather ticked off
| at the inept manner in which we are dealing with those few
terrorists, and
| that doesn't help matters any.
|
| Neil
|
|

In article ,
"Jim Macklin" wrote:

It is not a Diebold machine and it does clearly show the
ballot twice and it does require the voter verify the ballot
is as they want it three times. Stupid people should not
breed or vote.

"You can't fix stupid"

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Amazingly (to me) I was the ONLY person in line to choose to vote
electronically...

Is there a paper trail? How is a recount of electronic votes done with
those electronic voting machines?

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!

.... but the paper still exists, and can be counted by trained monkeys if
there is a question.

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.

You can express the "do nothing" opinion by staying home.

Actually, in races where winning requires (say) a majority of votes
cast, rather than a plurality, voting white makes it harder for a
winning candidate to win.

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.

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.