Adding fuel to the flame [Archive]

penchief

03-23-2005, 04:35 AM

Saggysack

03-23-2005, 04:55 AM

Chances are you trust Diebold every time you use an ATM machine. Are you picketing your local bank?

Do you get a paper reciept for your vote like you do for a transaction at a ATM? I didn't think so. You might have a point if you didn't have the option of a reciept at a ATM, otherwise...

Quit being a dumbass and comparing apples to oranges.

BCD

03-23-2005, 05:16 AM

There is a Diebold factory a few miles from me. Not exactly sure what they make there, though...

BCD

03-23-2005, 05:17 AM

Quit being a dumbass I think he was actually being a 'Smart'ass...

Saggysack

03-23-2005, 05:25 AM

I think he was actually being a 'Smart'ass...

He may have been trying to be a smartass but he came off as a dumbass.

ATM's have paper trails, do they not?

The Diebold machines in question that people have been raising a hissy fit since they have been in use do not have paper trails.

Would you use a ATM that you knew didn't have a paper trail?

Radar Chief

03-23-2005, 06:56 AM

The whole situation is stupid. How can anyone oppose a paper trail?

Trees?! You guys want to kill MORE Trees?! Does your lumber lust know no bounds?!
:deevee: Won’t someone please think of the trees?

All kidding aside, I agree. How hard is it to make your vote on a touch screen computer, have it print up a receipt, drop that receipt in a ballet box and call it a day?

Duck Dog

03-23-2005, 07:17 AM

Trees?! You guys want to kill MORE Trees?! Does your lumber lust know no bounds?!
:deevee: Won’t someone please think of the trees?

All kidding aside, I agree. How hard is it to make your vote on a touch screen computer, have it print up a receipt, drop that receipt in a ballet box and call it a day?

This is what should be happening. It would shut the whinners up once and for all.

I'm all for a paper trail. Well, as long as it's printed on recycled paper.

whoman69

03-23-2005, 07:28 AM

Trees?! You guys want to kill MORE Trees?! Does your lumber lust know no bounds?!
:deevee: Won’t someone please think of the trees?

All kidding aside, I agree. How hard is it to make your vote on a touch screen computer, have it print up a receipt, drop that receipt in a ballet box and call it a day?
That's not the point of the article. The point is how easy it is to cheese those results.

Radar Chief

03-23-2005, 07:41 AM

That's not the point of the article. The point is how easy it is to cheese those results.

Which could be eliminated with a “paper trail” as discussed in the post I quoted, correct?

Radar Chief

03-23-2005, 07:44 AM

This is what should be happening. It would shut the whinners up once and for all.

I'm all for a paper trail. Well, as long as it's printed on recycled paper.

:thumb:

Joe Seahawk

03-23-2005, 08:11 AM

MOONBAT ALERT!! :)

penchief

03-23-2005, 01:08 PM

This is what should be happening. It would shut the whinners up once and for all..

Interesting concept. Is that conservativespeak?

Advocating electoral accountability = whining.

Clinton witch-hunt = noble cause.

Just what is okay for non-conservatives to be bothered about? Anything?

We already know that any attempt to seek governmental accountability is equated to whining in the conservative handbook. Just what do you call all the whining that conservatives did over absolutely nothing relevent during Clinton's eight years? Eight years of investigations that didn't glean a thing except a lie about sex that occurred six years in.

Oh well. It'll stop my whining about this particular threat to one of our most cherished democratic principles (one man, one vote) once the system is fixed.

KCTitus

03-23-2005, 01:51 PM

Oh well. It'll stop my whining about this particular threat to one of our most cherished democratic principles (one man, one vote) once the system is fixed.

Oh how I remember this tripe back in November...even the great and powerful Teej couldnt answer the question, and my recent readings on the subject havent netted anything, I was hoping with 4 months the DU folks could dig up something.

Im curious, if the system is broken, please identify which state it's broken in by documenting the audit procedures that are missing or the gaps in redundancies that could allow fraud to occur.

Im sure I'll get crickets, but maybe you'll suprise me.

Radar Chief

03-23-2005, 02:29 PM

Interesting concept. Is that conservativespeak?

Advocating electoral accountability = whining.

Clinton witch-hunt = noble cause.

Just what is okay for non-conservatives to be bothered about? Anything?

We already know that any attempt to seek governmental accountability is equated to whining in the conservative handbook. Just what do you call all the whining that conservatives did over absolutely nothing relevent during Clinton's eight years? Eight years of investigations that didn't glean a thing except a lie about sex that occurred six years in.

Oh well. It'll stop my whining about this particular threat to one of our most cherished democratic principles (one man, one vote) once the system is fixed.

Well, at least you didn’t whine about being called a whiner. ROFL

KCWolfman

03-23-2005, 04:01 PM

He may have been trying to be a smartass but he came off as a dumbass.

ATM's have paper trails, do they not?

The Diebold machines in question that people have been raising a hissy fit since they have been in use do not have paper trails.

Would you use a ATM that you knew didn't have a paper trail?
So what you are saying is that electronic files can be tampered, but paper trails can't be?

Wooo, I feel better now.

penchief

03-23-2005, 05:21 PM

mikey23545

03-23-2005, 06:42 PM

Diebold lied,
Kerry cried.

KCTitus

03-24-2005, 08:49 AM

And what do you have against a paper trail? For the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone would be against it.

I dont have anything against a paper trail....how do you know that one does not exist?

We've reached that dynamic again when the accuser is somehow not required to actually pony up factual information to back up one's claims.

Prove to me, that what you say does not exist by identifying states and their audit procedures which contain gaps which could lead to fraud. Once you're able to accomplish that, I'll agree with you on the premise which you cite and call for the same thing.

Back in November, I pasted a link from Ohio's state website which referenced a PAPER TRAIL (or more accuately paper 'receipts') if all electronic verification failed and everyone ignored it. Oddly, Im trying to remember if you werent involved in that thread at the time.

I went above and beyond to 'disprove' your claims and all I asked for was any factual information and all I got was crickets.

So, we're now full circle...you have claimed there are no paper trails, I find that notion absurd and wish proof. I will not accept DummyUnderground links.

Radar Chief

03-24-2005, 08:57 AM

Back in November, I pasted a link from Ohio's state website which referenced a PAPER TRAIL (or more accuately paper 'receipts') if all electronic verification failed and everyone ignored it. Oddly, Im trying to remember if you werent involved in that thread at the time.

Ah, didn’t know that / must’ve missed the topic. :thumb:

penchief

03-24-2005, 10:59 AM

I dont have anything against a paper trail....how do you know that one does not exist?

We've reached that dynamic again when the accuser is somehow not required to actually pony up factual information to back up one's claims.

Prove to me, that what you say does not exist by identifying states and their audit procedures which contain gaps which could lead to fraud. Once you're able to accomplish that, I'll agree with you on the premise which you cite and call for the same thing.

Back in November, I pasted a link from Ohio's state website which referenced a PAPER TRAIL (or more accuately paper 'receipts') if all electronic verification failed and everyone ignored it. Oddly, Im trying to remember if you werent involved in that thread at the time.

I went above and beyond to 'disprove' your claims and all I asked for was any factual information and all I got was crickets.

So, we're now full circle...you have claimed there are no paper trails, I find that notion absurd and wish proof. I will not accept DummyUnderground links.

I don't recall making claims. I'm stating how I feel about the lack of a paper trail. The type of paper trail that makes sense to me is one in which a person votes and gets a print out right then and there. That is the standard when you put your mark on a ballot or punch one out.

It is very uncomfortable in today's partisan enviroment where political parties and their beneficiaries will go to any lengths, honest and dishonest, to win power and impose their will. IMO, voters need the peace of mind of knowing that their vote did not enter into an electronic black-hole that might easily be manipulated by the overzealous and the powerful.

That's all. And it's not asking much. What worries me even more is that there are so many who are offended by such an idea. An idea that is fundamentally sound and solves the problem. The paper trail should also be counted to verify that it matches the electronic vote.

Personally, I think we ought to just stick with ballots. Partisan's on both sides can participate in a "hands-on" visual verification of the count.

KCTitus

03-24-2005, 11:10 AM

I don't recall making claims. I'm stating how I feel about the lack of a paper trail. The type of paper trail that makes sense to me is one in which a person votes and gets a print out right then and there. That is the standard when you put your mark on a ballot or punch one out.

Please...of course you are making claims. Your first claim was that all philosophical opponents are against 'paper trails' and second you inferred that they dont exist.

I realize at this point you've deftly moved to accepting the fact that they do exist, they're just not in the form you 'prefer'.

Feh on all that...calling into question election results by inferring the election systems are open to fraud is making a claim. I'd hoped that there was some actual factual content to back those claims up, alas, you've admitted you only have feelings.

Sorry, I need more than a 'hunch'...

On the existing punch card ballots, I find it somewhat humorous to read this now as opposed to 2000 when I read (not from you) but about those claiming how susceptible to fraud the punch cards are.

This has nothing to do with 'partisan politics' or anything...both parties reps are in the room when the counting occurs and if both sign off on it as legit. Im willing to accept the fact that they acted in good faith regardless the results.

Amnorix

03-24-2005, 11:47 AM

Oh how I remember this tripe back in November...even the great and powerful Teej couldnt answer the question, and my recent readings on the subject havent netted anything, I was hoping with 4 months the DU folks could dig up something.

Im curious, if the system is broken, please identify which state it's broken in by documenting the audit procedures that are missing or the gaps in redundancies that could allow fraud to occur.

Im sure I'll get crickets, but maybe you'll suprise me.
Somewhat related to what you're asking for, Ohio apparently had alot of problems which should be reviewed/checked/fixed for next time around. Many of the rumored issues related to insufficient voting machines in minority districts. No idea how valid/invalid these complaints are, but if true, it's an issue.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1100428444286470.xml

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/2004_Ohio_Irregularities

http://www.spectrumz.com/z/fair_use/2004/11_04.html

KCTitus

03-24-2005, 12:03 PM

Somewhat related to what you're asking for, Ohio apparently had alot of problems which should be reviewed/checked/fixed for next time around. Many of the rumored issues related to insufficient voting machines in minority districts. No idea how valid/invalid these complaints are, but if true, it's an issue.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1100428444286470.xml

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/2004_Ohio_Irregularities

http://www.spectrumz.com/z/fair_use/2004/11_04.html

You'll get no argument from me that the voting systems are far from perfect...Im no expert in how the process is funded, but I will not ascribe to conspiracy theories.

penchief

03-24-2005, 02:25 PM

Please...of course you are making claims. Your first claim was that all philosophical opponents are against 'paper trails' and second you inferred that they dont exist.

I realize at this point you've deftly moved to accepting the fact that they do exist, they're just not in the form you 'prefer'.

Feh on all that...calling into question election results by inferring the election systems are open to fraud is making a claim. I'd hoped that there was some actual factual content to back those claims up, alas, you've admitted you only have feelings.

Sorry, I need more than a 'hunch'...

On the existing punch card ballots, I find it somewhat humorous to read this now as opposed to 2000 when I read (not from you) but about those claiming how susceptible to fraud the punch cards are.

This has nothing to do with 'partisan politics' or anything...both parties reps are in the room when the counting occurs and if both sign off on it as legit. Im willing to accept the fact that they acted in good faith regardless the results.

I don't have any proof that they do exist. And they certainly don't exist in a manner that gives the voter peace of mind via a real piece of paper that one knows will validate his/her vote if there is a glitch or doubts arise. If the voter doesn't have peace of mind, what good is voting?

Besides, I have more of a problem with the 2000 election than I do the 2004. What bothered my about electronic voting in 2004 was that two years prior to the vote people were calling for a paper trail (receipt) in order to preserve the integrity of the system yet those calls seemed to be ignored. The media didn't even raise the issue to the level that it deserved, IMO. That alone raises questions in my mind. But then again, maybe I'm just more inquisitive than the average conservative.

Simplex3

03-24-2005, 03:52 PM

I don't have any proof that they do exist. And they certainly don't exist in a manner that gives the voter peace of mind via a real piece of paper that one knows will validate his/her vote if there is a glitch or doubts arise. If the voter doesn't have peace of mind, what good is voting?

Besides, I have more of a problem with the 2000 election than I do the 2004. What bothered my about electronic voting in 2004 was that two years prior to the vote people were calling for a paper trail (receipt) in order to preserve the integrity of the system yet those calls seemed to be ignored. The media didn't even raise the issue to the level that it deserved, IMO. That alone raises questions in my mind. But then again, maybe I'm just more inquisitive than the average conservative.
I would trust an audited computer system LONG before I'd trust that spectacle that happened down in FL over the hanging chads or those registered Democrat losers in WA that happened to "find" a box of votes after the SECOND recount in a district that voted heavily for the Democrat.

As for the "margin of error" crap, with a properly designed computer based system there is no margin of error except for people too dumb to push the name of the person they want (which is their own damn fault). These aren't complex finance calculations involving percentages where 1000ths of pennies are rounded off, it's f**king whole addition.

As for your "paper trail", what's to say I don't make that print out wrong? It's not like the voter gets to take their receipt and then can check later to make sure their vote was properly counted and applied.

If you're so worried about electronic voting machines I can assume you keep your money in a jar on the fridge or under your matress, right?

penchief

03-24-2005, 06:20 PM

I would trust an audited computer system LONG before I'd trust that spectacle that happened down in FL over the hanging chads or those registered Democrat losers in WA that happened to "find" a box of votes after the SECOND recount in a district that voted heavily for the Democrat.

As for the "margin of error" crap, with a properly designed computer based system there is no margin of error except for people too dumb to push the name of the person they want (which is their own damn fault). These aren't complex finance calculations involving percentages where 1000ths of pennies are rounded off, it's f**king whole addition.

As for your "paper trail", what's to say I don't make that print out wrong? It's not like the voter gets to take their receipt and then can check later to make sure their vote was properly counted and applied.

If you're so worried about electronic voting machines I can assume you keep your money in a jar on the fridge or under your matress, right?

The way I see it, the voter would get a receipt that would tell him/her that their vote was recorded properly. They would then put that receipt in a ballot box that could then be counted later to verify the election. I would think that a voter is capable of acknowledging who he/she voted for. Why is that such a hard concept to comprehend?

The integrity of future elections is at stake, IMO. At some point, there will be a scenario in which unscrupulous political operatives or their supporters are capable of manipulating electronic voting to satisfy their ends. The notion that this scenario is not possible, even today, seems to be a little unrealistic to me.

IMO, it is fundamentally the right thing to do and it is so simple. Why would anyone oppose it? Why not remove all doubt and give voters the peace of mind that they deserve in a democracy such as ours?

KCWolfman

03-24-2005, 07:48 PM

The way I see it, the voter would get a receipt that would tell him/her that their vote was recorded properly. They would then put that receipt in a ballot box that could then be counted later to verify the election. I would think that a voter is capable of acknowledging who he/she voted for. Why is that such a hard concept to comprehend?

The integrity of future elections is at stake, IMO. At some point, there will be a scenario in which unscrupulous political operatives or their supporters are capable of manipulating electronic voting to satisfy their ends. The notion that this scenario is not possible, even today, seems to be a little unrealistic to me.

IMO, it is fundamentally the right thing to do and it is so simple. Why would anyone oppose it? Why not remove all doubt and give voters the peace of mind that they deserve in a democracy such as ours?
Do voters get a receipt today with paper ballots?

I haven't gotten one recently.

patteeu

03-24-2005, 08:59 PM

The whole situation is stupid. How can anyone oppose a paper trail? That, IMO, is the reason for all the doubt and suspicion. If the leaders of this country (particularly, the right) wouldn't ignore the fact that a paper trail is the solution there wouldnt be this debate, IMO. The only legitimate election is one that can be easily verified and the results trusted by all.

Really, can anyone explain why there is no push to do this thing right? How can we preach about spreading democracy around the world when we allow such a huge loophole to exist in the most basic right that free people possess; voting?

The only reason I have any doubts about the system at all is because I can't understand why our leaders and so many others in this country don't seem to comprehend how fundamental the problem is and how simple the solution is.

How does a paper trail prevent voting fraud? We've had voter fraud with paper-based voting since the beginning. If the cheaters were smart enough to fix the electronic system, why wouldn't they fix the paper backup at the same time. Unless we are going to do away with anonymous voting, I see no reason to believe that any kind of receipt system would prevent potential fraud.

Ari Chi3fs

03-25-2005, 06:12 AM

I dont have anything against a paper trail....how do you know that one does not exist?

Well I didnt get one. I asked for one, and they looked at me like I was crazy.

penchief

03-25-2005, 06:32 AM

Do voters get a receipt today with paper ballots?

I haven't gotten one recently.

It is true that you don't walk out of the polling station with a receipt. But it is also true that with a paper ballot the voter knows for sure that when it comes out of the ballot box to be counted there is no such thing as a glitch. It will be exactly as it was when he put it in there. No other manipulation is even possible. What goes in the box comes out of the box. With electronic voting the possibilities of manipulation seem endless. After all, it is a computer. And as we know, computers offer endless possibilities.

Anyhoo, I didn't say that the voters would take their receipts home and frame them for hanging above the mantle. I said that they would go into a ballot box that could be used to verify the accuracy of the electronic vote.

penchief

03-25-2005, 06:41 AM

How does a paper trail prevent voting fraud? We've had voter fraud with paper-based voting since the beginning. If the cheaters were smart enough to fix the electronic system, why wouldn't they fix the paper backup at the same time. Unless we are going to do away with anonymous voting, I see no reason to believe that any kind of receipt system would prevent potential fraud.

IMO, it would be infinitely more difficult to manipulate the vote with individual hard copies of each vote than it would with a computer. Not only can computers be manipulated by humans, they also tend to have glitches that can cause the information to be incorrect or completely lost. The possibility of this happening with large numbers of votes seems real. If a person believes that computers can be manipulated and that they can fail, then it only makes sense to have "back-up" when dealing with "data" as important as an American election.

America was founded on democratic principles and I believe the debate over this issue is about preserving American principles. This is not a partisan issue, IMO.

mlyonsd

03-25-2005, 06:45 AM

IMO, it would be infinitely more difficult to manipulate the vote with individual hard copies of each vote than it would with a computer. Not only can computers be manipulated by humans, they also tend to have glitches that can cause the information to be incorrect or completely lost. The possibility of this happening with large numbers of votes seems real. If a person believes that computers can be manipulated and that they can fail, then it only makes sense to have "back-up" when dealing with "data" as important as an American election.

America was founded on democratic principles and I believe the debate over this issue is about preserving American principles. This is not a partisan issue, IMO.

Then why even go to computers in the first place?

I say use the old paper ballots where you take a marker and fill in a line pointing to who you are voting for. The voter can then read them into a machine which would spit them out if there were conflicts.

I also think the purple finger is a good idea too. We should add it to our procedures.

penchief

03-25-2005, 07:16 AM

Then why even go to computers in the first place?

I say use the old paper ballots where you take a marker and fill in a line pointing to who you are voting for. The voter can then read them into a machine which would spit them out if there were conflicts.

I also think the purple finger is a good idea too. We should add it to our procedures.

I agree with all of this. We're singing the same tune.