Do you trust electronic voting machines?

DUH!

Who has that signature about if voting changed anything it would be illegal........

Some countries take voting more seriously than we do but many are just beyond disillusionment with the depth of corruption within their governments. I know I am.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ May 12 2006, 12:00 PM) [snapback]254099[/snapback]</div>

BTW- what wine is that in your avatar, Salsawonder?

 

Electronic voting could be a great thing, provided that paper receipts are generated, reviewed and approved by the voter and submitted to the election officials.
Tampering would be easily detected by regularly performing manual counts at a small percentage of voting sites.

Without man-readable, voter reviewed paper, you're just inviting fraud.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ May 12 2006, 12:09 PM) [snapback]254111[/snapback]</div>

It's being debated.
The forces of corruption are trying to quash it.
Ask any good IT guy (like me) how many ways it could get screwed up if you don't have a paper trail.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ May 12 2006, 09:09 AM) [snapback]254111[/snapback]</div>

The county I live in requires the voter to complete a paper ballot which is fed into a scanner and drops into a locked election box. If there is something wrong with the ballot, like two votes for the same office, the ballot gets kicked back out and the voter fixes it. Seems like the perfect system to me.

Now if voters were only required to produce a photo ID ...... :angry:

 

Hey Jared,

You do know I've been planted on this board by the Bush administration right?

h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kiloran @ May 12 2006, 12:06 PM) [snapback]254109[/snapback]</div>

It seems to me that this is the right way to do it. You go up to the machine, enter your choices, the machine prints out a ballot, you check to make sure it selected the people/options you chose, and you go drop that ballot into a ballot box. The ballots are then counted and you never have to deal with easily-hackable voting machines *or* with hanging chads.

EDIT: After more carefully reading your post, I think we differ slightly in our opinion. You think that there should be a paper trail as a back-up for the electronic countings, whereas I think there should be no electronic countings in the first place (i.e. the computers are just there to print the ballots). Regardless, I think we would both agree that electronic voting without a paper trial is a bad idea.

 

From the GAO report on electronic voting machines: "concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes."

The GAO report is worth reading; it's at:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05956.pdf
A summary of its findings is at:
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1529

Considering that the machines are made by Diebold, whose CEO promised (and made good on it) to deliver Ohio to Bush in the 2004 election, I don't trust them at all.

 

Diebold Voting Machine Security Flaw "Worst Ever"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051206F.shtml
The most serious security breach that's ever been discovered in a
voting system has been discovered in the Diebold voting machines. The
security hole allows someone with a common computer component and knowledge
of Diebold systems to load almost any software without a password or
proof of authenticity and potentially without leaving telltale signs of
the change.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ghostofjk @ May 12 2006, 09:56 PM) [snapback]254489[/snapback]</div>

Nope. Don't trust them. (Geez, I sound like Chuck D..."can't truss it")

However, I trust humans counting ballots even less.

Ever since Florida, 2000...a time lived in infamy and utter shame...I have so little faith in voting regulations. It doesn't stop me from using whatever machine the voting board supplies, though.

I used a computer touch-screen in the last two elections in my state, and they were very easy to use. To an earlier point, it seems like they may be the best way to count votes AS LONG AS THERE IS AN ACCURATE WAY TO VALIDATE VOTES!!!

All I know is...(said in the style of Faye Dunaway as Joan Crawford)..."NO MORE HANGING CHADS!"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 12 2006, 09:03 AM) [snapback]254102[/snapback]</div>

I did not get to drink that one. My daughter sent me that pic from Italy. I have Paso Robles wines and a few Aussie and Argentinian wines in the closet.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jeff Beaver @ May 12 2006, 11:35 AM) [snapback]254218[/snapback]</div>

I have worked the SD polls (thought it would be interesting...really long day). We had these type of ballot machines this last time. I think if someone wnats to cheat they could do it but I like the paper back up to the machine count.

 

"It's not who casts the votes, it's who counts the votes." - J. Stalin

It doesn't matter what machines are used to cast the votes if Diebold machines are counting the votes.

Diebold doesn't seem to have a problem with providing machines with paper trails internationally, just domestically.

How hard could it be...an ATM can give you a receipt?

There is no system of voting that cannot be corrupted. Maybe we should all meet in town halls for a show of hands?

Do I think the voting system has been corrupted? Yes. Have both parties been involved? Yes. But I think the Republicans are much, much better at it. I do believe the last two elections were a result of tampering. Not necessarily just with the machines. Other fraud was committed. (Ohio...why were there so many machines in thinly populated Republican districts and so few in heavily populated Democratic districts? Do we really need to talk about Florida 2000?)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ May 13 2006, 01:18 AM) [snapback]254599[/snapback]</div>

One of the most fundamental and precious rights that every citizen has is the right to vote. And the most egregious thing about the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections- even worse than the fact that shrub managed to sneak into office twice- is that many people in this country were denied the right to have their vote counted.

 

We use an electronic voting machine which I like very much (speaking as both a voter and an electrical engineer). The system uses a paper mark-sense ballot, which you mark by filling in little ovals, just like test sheets in school. The sheet is then fed into the electronic reader in the presence of the poll workers, poll watchers, and the voter.

Here are the advantages to this system:

1) You don't need a machine for each active voter. Several people can fill out ballots at the same time for each reader, since the reading process is much faster than the filling-in process.

2) There is an inherent paper trail.

3) There is no punching, hanging chads, or goofy stylus.

4) You cannot turn in a bad ballot. The reader error checks each one and refuses to take any ballots with errors or illegal votes. As an example, if you tried to be fair and balanced and voted for both the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, the reader would kick out your ballot and you would have to re-vote. Many other systems do not catch this type of error until after the voter has left, in which case that vote is void.

5) The vote is tallied as the ballots are read, so as soon as the polls close you know the vote.

6) Full privacy. No one can see your marks, and no tally information is displayed during voting.

I think these are the best systems made.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Salsawonder @ May 12 2006, 08:58 AM) [snapback]254096[/snapback]</div>

That would be me.

Since you do not have the choice to vote for "none of the above," and since candidates are elected by plurality, not by majority, so that a massive vote for protest candidates still leaves one of the big two in power, and since the selection of candidates in the first place is controlled at a level out of reach of the voters, it makes little difference who wins the general election. Big Business still runs the country. And the same businesses back both parties. Finally, if a genuine outsider makes it onto the ballot, she'll be excluded from the candidate debates and blackballed by the media so that the common voter will arrive at the polls without ever having heard of her.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ May 13 2006, 07:17 AM) [snapback]254675[/snapback]</div>

You're talking about a Scantron system. We use them in schools all of the time.

I think they're somewhere about 90% accurate.

BTW those votes go to a main machine that tallies them. It tallies the absentee ballots too. That machine could be tampered with. In my district that machine is manufactured by.....Diebold.

The only electronic system I would consider would be what the state of Nevada uses, and it's NOT DIEBOLD. When Nevada was looking for an electronic voting system it handed the evaluation process over to the gaming commission because they have the most expertise in that field. Too many states chose their systems based on a sales pitch to clueless bureaucrats. At least Nevada had experts in the field to study the options and chose the best system. And they have a way to constantly monitor the honesty of the system.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jeff Beaver @ May 12 2006, 02:35 PM) [snapback]254218[/snapback]</div>

We are in CT

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 13 2006, 01:36 AM) [snapback]254609[/snapback]</div>

"sneak"? Time to get over it. If you really feel you were duped in 2000, you know the saying..."fool me once...


Anyhow, I still prefer the old pull-lever mechanical machine to an electronic device. Although it constantly amazes me how efficient the electronic machines are when it comes to handling the lottery.