And you said I was being Paranoid? 29 replies

Please wait...

emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

OK I may be paranoid but that doesnt change these facts.

Bush is pushing for electronic voting machines in every state. The guy who runs Diebold is a very dedicated Bush supporter.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

Knowing that read the link. http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago

Even if electronic voting was completely flawless (and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidential_election_controversy%2C_voting_machines is one example that it's not), I still wouldn't like it, because it leaves absolutely no trail of the actual votes.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

216,815 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

19,996 Posts

6 Threads

#3 12 years ago
masked_marsoeEven if electronic voting was completely flawless (and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidential_election_controversy%2C_voting_machines is one example that it's not), I still wouldn't like it, because it leaves absolutely no trail of the actual votes.

:agreed A manual count may be more expensive, but I'd say democracy is worth that extra-money.




Rich19

Italicised no more

50 XP

14th August 2004

0 Uploads

4,058 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago

Manual counting is obviously going to be fairer. There are numerous ways an electronic counter could be made unfair.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago
MrFancypants:agreed A manual count may be more expensive, but I'd say democracy is worth that extra-money.

Indeed. Manual count is the only proper way to count votes as you can't rule out all the flaws of electronic voting. We just have to make manual voting & counting more efficient.




Fire Legion

Your argument is invalid.

50 XP

11th March 2006

0 Uploads

1,162 Posts

0 Threads

#6 12 years ago

Electronic counters are dangerous- if a corrupt or oppressive government seized control in America, their jobs would be that much easy to keep.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#7 12 years ago

Computers can be wrong, but they don't lie - which is more than I can say for human vote counters. People are probably unhappy with the machines because its harder to doctor the results.:p




Go Canada!

www.freewebs.com/45to53/

50 XP

14th January 2006

0 Uploads

105 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago

I think its a good idea, but I'm republican, so you get where I'm coming from. By the way, war is your friend.




Napalm

Alumni @ Miskatonic University

50 XP

30th January 2004

0 Uploads

1,318 Posts

0 Threads

#9 12 years ago

I don't think that the fact that the head of the voting company is a Bush supporter has anything to do with possible election fraud in these systems. I think the real problem is the lack of security within the machines.




Joe Bonham

Quetron's alt account

50 XP

10th December 2005

0 Uploads

6,894 Posts

0 Threads

#10 12 years ago
I think its a good idea, but I'm republican, so you get where I'm coming from.

The argument against it is paranoia - or I should say biased paranioa (If the head of the company was a democrat, I doubt they would be complaining)

By the way, war is your friend.

War is foreign policy by other means - I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say its your friend.

I don't think that the fact that the head of the voting company is a Bush supporter has anything to do with possible election fraud in these systems. I think the real problem is the lack of security within the machines.

How is a computer more vulnerable than a box of forms? Either one can be altered by tampering.