| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka" |
| Date: |
20 Nov 2004 03:39:07 PM |
| Object: |
Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
Some questions about voting patterns and electronic voting machines
have been raised - and there's no paper trail to answer them:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/election.aftermath.ap/index.html
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Bob Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
21 Nov 2004 03:25:56 AM |
|
|
(Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0411201339.44371e96@posting.google.com>...
Some questions about voting patterns and electronic voting machines
have been raised - and there's no paper trail to answer them:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/election.aftermath.ap/index.html
Budikka
What is really annoying/chilling is that the writer's view
is "Bush got more votes, so the machines weren't rigged."
Yes, Shrub got more votes fairly this time, but how do we
know that there weren't irregularities? Or that there
won't be next time? The issues is not chicken littles,
it's chickenhawks rigging elections.
Bob Dog
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
21 Nov 2004 03:13:04 PM |
|
|
On 21 Nov 2004 01:25:56 -0800, (Bob Dog) wrote:
budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0411201339.44371e96@posting.google.com>...
Some questions about voting patterns and electronic voting machines
have been raised - and there's no paper trail to answer them:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/election.aftermath.ap/index.html
Budikka
What is really annoying/chilling is that the writer's view
is "Bush got more votes, so the machines weren't rigged."
Yes, Shrub got more votes fairly this time,
That much is established, no matter what uncertainties still cling to the Diebold(sp)-type
paper-trackless voting machines? I plain don't know, since I don't know how widespread
was the use of such machines, and what percent of the popular vote they account for, in
the aggregate. While doubts that those machines conducted a fair election, where they
were in use, remain, istm that there is exceedingly little *known* about this election (in
those precincts, again pointing out that I'm in ignorance of what fraction of the total they
represent, as well as what fraction *specific to particular states* where the outcome
could be upset if they were not reporting in an unbiased fashion.)
Regarding other electronic voting machines, I still hear the haunting refrain that "they've
been in use in [our] county for ten years, without any problems." Am I alone in hearing that
as "without any trouble-makers being heard from about them"? We only know if a class of
machines "caused any trouble" if their reported vote counts are independently auditable, as
opposed to the idea that "recount" now means "tell the machine to spit out that number again."
but how do we
know that there weren't irregularities? Or that there
won't be next time? The issues is not chicken littles,
it's chickenhawks rigging elections.
Bob Dog
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
For e-mail, hold that tiger!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
21 Nov 2004 06:04:38 PM |
|
|
Apostate <Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote in
news:9i02q0h5v0sqvg8kl4rnqlbr83qjd9pqmc@4ax.com:
On 21 Nov 2004 01:25:56 -0800, (Bob Dog) wrote:
budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote in message
news:<e1e30450.0411201339.44371e96@posting.google.com>...
Some questions about voting patterns and electronic voting machines
have been raised - and there's no paper trail to answer them:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/election.aftermath.ap/index
.html
Budikka
What is really annoying/chilling is that the writer's view
is "Bush got more votes, so the machines weren't rigged."
Yes, Shrub got more votes fairly this time,
That much is established, no matter what uncertainties still
cling to the Diebold(sp)-type paper-trackless voting machines? I
plain don't know, since I don't know how widespread was the use
of such machines, and what percent of the popular vote they
account for, in the aggregate. While doubts that those machines
conducted a fair election, where they were in use, remain, istm
that there is exceedingly little *known* about this election (in
those precincts, again pointing out that I'm in ignorance of what
fraction of the total they represent, as well as what fraction
*specific to particular states* where the outcome could be upset
if they were not reporting in an unbiased fashion.)
Regarding other electronic voting machines, I still hear the
haunting refrain that "they've been in use in [our] county for
ten years, without any problems." Am I alone in hearing that
as "without any trouble-makers being heard from about them"? We
only know if a class of machines "caused any trouble" if their
reported vote counts are independently auditable, as opposed to
the idea that "recount" now means "tell the machine to spit out
that number again."
Most of the e-voting machines that I've been able to find technical
descriptions include CD-R outputs of their voting logs. With proper
controls, those are just as reliable and just as auditable as any paper-
based system.
but how do we
know that there weren't irregularities? Or that there
won't be next time? The issues is not chicken littles,
it's chickenhawks rigging elections.
First time I've seen a Democrat calling other Democrats "chickenhawks".
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
22 Nov 2004 12:07:53 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95A8C2134D8BFfstone69@207.69.189.191>...
Apostate <Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote in
news:9i02q0h5v0sqvg8kl4rnqlbr83qjd9pqmc@4ax.com:
On 21 Nov 2004 01:25:56 -0800, (Bob Dog) wrote:
budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote in message
news:<e1e30450.0411201339.44371e96@posting.google.com>...
Some questions about voting patterns and electronic voting machines
have been raised - and there's no paper trail to answer them:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/election.aftermath.ap/index
.html
Budikka
What is really annoying/chilling is that the writer's view
is "Bush got more votes, so the machines weren't rigged."
Yes, Shrub got more votes fairly this time,
That much is established, no matter what uncertainties still
cling to the Diebold(sp)-type paper-trackless voting machines? I
plain don't know, since I don't know how widespread was the use
of such machines, and what percent of the popular vote they
account for, in the aggregate. While doubts that those machines
conducted a fair election, where they were in use, remain, istm
that there is exceedingly little *known* about this election (in
those precincts, again pointing out that I'm in ignorance of what
fraction of the total they represent, as well as what fraction
*specific to particular states* where the outcome could be upset
if they were not reporting in an unbiased fashion.)
Regarding other electronic voting machines, I still hear the
haunting refrain that "they've been in use in [our] county for
ten years, without any problems." Am I alone in hearing that
as "without any trouble-makers being heard from about them"? We
only know if a class of machines "caused any trouble" if their
reported vote counts are independently auditable, as opposed to
the idea that "recount" now means "tell the machine to spit out
that number again."
There have been problems in numerous counties using these machines in
*local elections*. Recounts are impossible, impossible and obviously
wrong numbers have shown up in vote tallies, the flash memory cards
used to store the votes have died ... and nobody knows if the systems
have ever been cracked. They could be--without leaving a trace.
Most of the e-voting machines that I've been able to find technical
descriptions include CD-R outputs of their voting logs. With proper
controls, those are just as reliable and just as auditable as any paper-
based system.
What, did the voter get to inspect the bits?
If the voter can't see the visible record of their vote, there is no
way to tell if the vote was correctly recorded.
That was true of the old mechanical voting machines, as nice as they
seemed to be, and it's true of the new computer ones without paper
records.
The frontend could tell you you're voting for Fleeberman, while
silently recording a vote for Burgermeister.
The machine could be audited later, but depending on the type of
tampering, it might not be detected, or might be too little, too late.
Furthermore, most election offices don't have the IT experience or
personnel to actually audit such equipment! They don't have a fucking
clue how it works and are at the mercy of the vendors, which include
such stars (taste the sarcasm) of the industry as Diebold. Diebold
makes the infamous Windows-based ATMs. If you've ever gotten a BSOD on
an ATM, you know who to thank.
Furthermore, one system that I know of used flash memory cards to
record votes. When the battery dies (which they do--I've used them in
industrial applications), all data is lost. Good bye votes.
CD-R's are also prone to failure. I'd consider paper records much more
durable than a CD-R, short-term or long-term.
-Hypatia
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
22 Nov 2004 01:11:05 PM |
|
|
(Hypatia Kosh) wrote in
news:1048bc8e.0411221007.d841f9@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns95A8C2134D8BFfstone69@207.69.189.191>...
Apostate <Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote in
news:9i02q0h5v0sqvg8kl4rnqlbr83qjd9pqmc@4ax.com:
On 21 Nov 2004 01:25:56 -0800, (Bob Dog)
wrote:
budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote in message
news:<e1e30450.0411201339.44371e96@posting.google.com>...
Some questions about voting patterns and electronic voting
machines have been raised - and there's no paper trail to answer
them:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/election.aftermath.ap/index
.html
Budikka
What is really annoying/chilling is that the writer's view
is "Bush got more votes, so the machines weren't rigged."
Yes, Shrub got more votes fairly this time,
That much is established, no matter what uncertainties still
cling to the Diebold(sp)-type paper-trackless voting machines?
I plain don't know, since I don't know how widespread was the
use of such machines, and what percent of the popular vote
they account for, in the aggregate. While doubts that those
machines conducted a fair election, where they were in use,
remain, istm that there is exceedingly little *known* about
this election (in those precincts, again pointing out that I'm
in ignorance of what fraction of the total they represent, as
well as what fraction *specific to particular states* where
the outcome could be upset if they were not reporting in an
unbiased fashion.)
Regarding other electronic voting machines, I still hear the
haunting refrain that "they've been in use in [our] county for
ten years, without any problems." Am I alone in hearing that
as "without any trouble-makers being heard from about them"?
We only know if a class of machines "caused any trouble" if
their reported vote counts are independently auditable, as
opposed to the idea that "recount" now means "tell the machine
to spit out that number again."
There have been problems in numerous counties using these machines in
*local elections*.
There have been problems with every other kind of voting system too.
Paper ballots can be destroyed just as easily as any other kind.
Recounts are impossible, impossible and obviously
wrong numbers have shown up in vote tallies, the flash memory cards
used to store the votes have died ... and nobody knows if the systems
have ever been cracked. They could be--without leaving a trace.
Flash memory?
Most of the e-voting machines that I've been able to find technical
descriptions include CD-R outputs of their voting logs. With proper
controls, those are just as reliable and just as auditable as any
paper- based system.
What, did the voter get to inspect the bits?
If the voter can't see the visible record of their vote, there is no
way to tell if the vote was correctly recorded.
That was true of the old mechanical voting machines, as nice as they
seemed to be, and it's true of the new computer ones without paper
records.
The frontend could tell you you're voting for Fleeberman, while
silently recording a vote for Burgermeister.
The machine could be audited later, but depending on the type of
tampering, it might not be detected, or might be too little, too late.
Furthermore, most election offices don't have the IT experience or
personnel to actually audit such equipment! They don't have a fucking
clue how it works and are at the mercy of the vendors, which include
such stars (taste the sarcasm) of the industry as Diebold. Diebold
makes the infamous Windows-based ATMs. If you've ever gotten a BSOD on
an ATM, you know who to thank.
Furthermore, one system that I know of used flash memory cards to
record votes. When the battery dies (which they do--I've used them in
industrial applications), all data is lost. Good bye votes.
Could be, might be, maybe, all speculation. It's all Democrats' dreams
of having something to blame for their own failure in the campaign.
Flash memory cards do not require battery power to maintain their
contents.
CD-R's are also prone to failure. I'd consider paper records much more
durable than a CD-R, short-term or long-term.
You'd be wrong. Paper is about the least reliable form of records
possible.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
22 Nov 2004 02:36:09 PM |
|
|
On 22 Nov 2004 10:07:53 -0800, (Hypatia Kosh) wrote:
Apostate <Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote in
news:9i02q0h5v0sqvg8kl4rnqlbr83qjd9pqmc@4ax.com:
Regarding other electronic voting machines, I still hear the
haunting refrain that "they've been in use in [our] county for
ten years, without any problems." Am I alone in hearing that
as "without any trouble-makers being heard from about them"? We
only know if a class of machines "caused any trouble" if their
reported vote counts are independently auditable, as opposed to
the idea that "recount" now means "tell the machine to spit out
that number again."
There have been problems in numerous counties using these machines in
*local elections*. Recounts are impossible, impossible and obviously
wrong numbers have shown up in vote tallies, the flash memory cards
used to store the votes have died ... and nobody knows if the systems
have ever been cracked. They could be--without leaving a trace.
"Cracked" flirts with being a straw machine, here.
In case the machine operates in a state of virtual petit-mal seizure, thanks to a misconceived
bit somewhere in the secret code (which is therefore not reviewable by the worldwide army of
code-literate amateurs as well as professionals,) no check that the machine holds as sole
witness can actually check *anything*, other than the sameness of results *in a particular
segment of the total routine,* beginning *after* the prime suspect for any error, i.e. the
moment when the input vote is first recorded (and earlier, i.e. that buffers are empty when
they should be, etc.) That the machine may keep a running "log" is of no value if it can't be
compared to some external register of which way each vote was cast (ballots, for instance.)
The output of these machines is not a formatted letter; it is "representative" government.
Proof of correctness is not asking a hell of a lot. As it stands, we've reconstituted the
self-authenticating magic of the buybull as the basis of trust in our elected officials.
Nice scam, if you can get it.
What, did the voter get to inspect the bits?
Point.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
For e-mail, hold that tiger!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
22 Nov 2004 06:09:17 PM |
|
|
Le Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:04:38 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
Most of the e-voting machines that I've been able to find technical
descriptions include CD-R outputs of their voting logs. With proper
controls, those are just as reliable and just as auditable as any paper-
based system.
Does the voter see what's being written on the CD-R?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
22 Nov 2004 07:38:19 PM |
|
|
Divin Marquis <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:pan.2004.11.23.00.09.17.140512@127.0.0.1:
Le Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:04:38 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
Most of the e-voting machines that I've been able to find technical
descriptions include CD-R outputs of their voting logs. With proper
controls, those are just as reliable and just as auditable as any paper-
based system.
Does the voter see what's being written on the CD-R?
Do they see what's being stuffed in the ballot box?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
23 Nov 2004 10:25:29 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95A9D1F826952fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
Divin Marquis <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:pan.2004.11.23.00.09.17.140512@127.0.0.1:
Le Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:04:38 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
Most of the e-voting machines that I've been able to find technical
descriptions include CD-R outputs of their voting logs. With proper
controls, those are just as reliable and just as auditable as any paper-
based system.
Does the voter see what's being written on the CD-R?
Do they see what's being stuffed in the ballot box?
Yes, you do Fred. You mark your paper ballot (the best system is
optical scan, which uses a marked paper ballot) and you see it go into
the "box". If the election results don't make sense, the paper
ballots come out and they LOOK at them. Remarkable concept.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
23 Nov 2004 10:34:47 AM |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2004 08:25:29 -0800, (jwk) wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95A9D1F826952fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
Divin Marquis <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:pan.2004.11.23.00.09.17.140512@127.0.0.1:
Le Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:04:38 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
Most of the e-voting machines that I've been able to find technical
descriptions include CD-R outputs of their voting logs. With proper
controls, those are just as reliable and just as auditable as any paper-
based system.
Does the voter see what's being written on the CD-R?
Do they see what's being stuffed in the ballot box?
Yes, you do Fred. You mark your paper ballot (the best system is
optical scan, which uses a marked paper ballot) and you see it go into
the "box". If the election results don't make sense, the paper
ballots come out and they LOOK at them. Remarkable concept.
There's so much hypocrisy here: we tell other countries how to do fair
elections - with audit trails, exit polls that are used as an
indicator as to how accurate the final result is, etc.
Jimmy Carter has said that his international body that oversees
elections wouldn't certify the US electoral process.
And the latest example of our hypocrisy is in the Ukraine, whom we are
threatening if the President there doesn't do all the recounts we
think are necessary, because we don't like him.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
23 Nov 2004 01:57:03 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:6gp6q09uusqvis85fugjmnrqlj6ine5p57@4ax.com:
On 23 Nov 2004 08:25:29 -0800, (jwk) wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns95A9D1F826952fstone69@207.69.189.191>...
Divin Marquis <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in
news:pan.2004.11.23.00.09.17.140512@127.0.0.1:
Le Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:04:38 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
Most of the e-voting machines that I've been able to find
technical descriptions include CD-R outputs of their voting logs.
With proper controls, those are just as reliable and just as
auditable as any paper- based system.
Does the voter see what's being written on the CD-R?
Do they see what's being stuffed in the ballot box?
Yes, you do Fred. You mark your paper ballot (the best system is
optical scan, which uses a marked paper ballot) and you see it go into
the "box". If the election results don't make sense, the paper
ballots come out and they LOOK at them. Remarkable concept.
There's so much hypocrisy here: we tell other countries how to do fair
elections - with audit trails, exit polls that are used as an
indicator as to how accurate the final result is, etc.
Jimmy Carter has said that his international body that oversees
elections wouldn't certify the US electoral process.
Talk about hypocrisy, Jimmy Carter's group didn't have any trouble with
certifying the Venezuelan electoral process.
And the latest example of our hypocrisy is in the Ukraine, whom we are
threatening if the President there doesn't do all the recounts we
think are necessary, because we don't like him.
At least John Kerry was man enough to accept his defeat. Why don't you
other Democrats emulate him?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
23 Nov 2004 05:04:10 PM |
|
|
Le Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:57:03 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
Jimmy Carter has said that his international body that oversees
elections wouldn't certify the US electoral process.
Talk about hypocrisy, Jimmy Carter's group didn't have any trouble with
certifying the Venezuelan electoral process.
Electronic machines in Venezuela DO have paper trail, and their source
code is open source IIRC. Compare this to the crappy ole' VB+Access
proprietary mess in Diebold's black boxes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
23 Nov 2004 05:14:59 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:04:10 +0100, Divin Marquis
<postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Le Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:57:03 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
Jimmy Carter has said that his international body that oversees
elections wouldn't certify the US electoral process.
Talk about hypocrisy, Jimmy Carter's group didn't have any trouble with
certifying the Venezuelan electoral process.
Electronic machines in Venezuela DO have paper trail, and their source
code is open source IIRC. Compare this to the crappy ole' VB+Access
proprietary mess in Diebold's black boxes.
Yes, They interviewed Carter on NPR a few weeks ago. He said the
machines count the vote there and then, _and_ give a printed ballot
with the voter's selection that he places in a ballot box.
He also said they use exit polls as a measure of how honest the
elections is, and if necessary use the paper-trail ballots for a
recount.
His objections to the US system weren't just the lack of paper-trail
for the voting machines, but also included:
- the way voting is carried out changes from state to state, and even
county to county.
- the electoral college.
- the removal of electors from the rolls.
- intimidation.
- the queues.
- etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
23 Nov 2004 08:06:46 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:9qg7q0d6shelhalh5l92e39rfq8opo2no6@4ax.com:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 00:04:10 +0100, Divin Marquis
<postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Le Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:57:03 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
Jimmy Carter has said that his international body that oversees
elections wouldn't certify the US electoral process.
Talk about hypocrisy, Jimmy Carter's group didn't have any trouble
with
certifying the Venezuelan electoral process.
Electronic machines in Venezuela DO have paper trail, and their source
code is open source IIRC. Compare this to the crappy ole' VB+Access
proprietary mess in Diebold's black boxes.
Yes, They interviewed Carter on NPR a few weeks ago. He said the
machines count the vote there and then, _and_ give a printed ballot
with the voter's selection that he places in a ballot box.
Did he mention that his group was not given access to the counts or the
ballot boxes until several days *after* the "official count" was
declared?
He also said they use exit polls as a measure of how honest the
elections is, and if necessary use the paper-trail ballots for a
recount.
That's a laugh since the exit polls there showed the result to be almost
exactly the opposite of what Carter's group certified.
His objections to the US system weren't just the lack of paper-trail
for the voting machines, but also included:
- the way voting is carried out changes from state to state, and even
county to county.
- the electoral college.
Both of the above are items in the Constitution. So Carter is basically
objecting to the US Constitution.
- the removal of electors from the rolls.
- intimidation.
- the queues.
- etc.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
23 Nov 2004 03:20:59 AM |
|
|
Le Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:38:19 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
Does the voter see what's being written on the CD-R?
Do they see what's being stuffed in the ballot box?
Here's what a ballot box look like in France:
http://membres.lycos.fr/isabellebreil/urne1
Notice it's ... transparent?
On top of it, there's a mechanical counter linked to lever-operated
opening. You can't drop a ballot without increasing the counter. The
number of ballots has to match with it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
22 Nov 2004 06:59:17 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:09:17 +0100, Divin Marquis
<postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Le Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:04:38 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
Most of the e-voting machines that I've been able to find technical
descriptions include CD-R outputs of their voting logs. With proper
controls, those are just as reliable and just as auditable as any paper-
based system.
Does the voter see what's being written on the CD-R?
Fred thinks that even if a bank doesn't want to give him a paper copy
of his transactions at ATMs and tells him to go to hell, that trusting
them is the only ethical reaction. Anything else would be whining.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
22 Nov 2004 07:39:11 PM |
|
|
(Kate ) wrote in
news:41a78a6f.157648312@news-west.newscene.com:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:09:17 +0100, Divin Marquis
<postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Le Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:04:38 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
Most of the e-voting machines that I've been able to find technical
descriptions include CD-R outputs of their voting logs. With proper
controls, those are just as reliable and just as auditable as any
paper- based system.
Does the voter see what's being written on the CD-R?
Fred thinks that even if a bank doesn't want to give him a paper copy
of his transactions at ATMs and tells him to go to hell, that trusting
them is the only ethical reaction. Anything else would be whining.
Kate doesn't think at all. Period.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
24 Nov 2004 07:17:01 PM |
|
|
On 22 Nov 2004 18:59:17 -0600, (Kate ) wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:09:17 +0100, Divin Marquis
<postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Le Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:04:38 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
Most of the e-voting machines that I've been able to find technical
descriptions include CD-R outputs of their voting logs. With proper
controls, those are just as reliable and just as auditable as any paper-
based system.
Does the voter see what's being written on the CD-R?
Fred thinks that even if a bank doesn't want to give him a paper copy
of his transactions at ATMs and tells him to go to hell, that trusting
them is the only ethical reaction. Anything else would be whining.
Fred *thinks?*
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
24 Nov 2004 08:34:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:17:01 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 22 Nov 2004 18:59:17 -0600, (Kate ) wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:09:17 +0100, Divin Marquis
<postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Le Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:04:38 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
Most of the e-voting machines that I've been able to find technical
descriptions include CD-R outputs of their voting logs. With proper
controls, those are just as reliable and just as auditable as any paper-
based system.
Does the voter see what's being written on the CD-R?
Fred thinks that even if a bank doesn't want to give him a paper copy
of his transactions at ATMs and tells him to go to hell, that trusting
them is the only ethical reaction. Anything else would be whining.
Fred *thinks?*
Well, not with his brain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
25 Nov 2004 12:50:12 PM |
|
|
On 24 Nov 2004 20:34:09 -0600, (Kate ) wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:17:01 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 22 Nov 2004 18:59:17 -0600, (Kate ) wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:09:17 +0100, Divin Marquis
<postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:
Le Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:04:38 +0000, Fred Stone a écrit :
Most of the e-voting machines that I've been able to find technical
descriptions include CD-R outputs of their voting logs. With proper
controls, those are just as reliable and just as auditable as any paper-
based system.
Does the voter see what's being written on the CD-R?
Fred thinks that even if a bank doesn't want to give him a paper copy
of his transactions at ATMs and tells him to go to hell, that trusting
them is the only ethical reaction. Anything else would be whining.
Fred *thinks?*
Well, not with his brain.
:)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
23 Nov 2004 06:33:43 AM |
|
|
Apostate <Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote in message news:<9i02q0h5v0sqvg8kl4rnqlbr83qjd9pqmc@4ax.com>...
On 21 Nov 2004 01:25:56 -0800, (Bob Dog) wrote:
budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0411201339.44371e96@posting.google.com>...
Some questions about voting patterns and electronic voting machines
have been raised - and there's no paper trail to answer them:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/election.aftermath.ap/index.html
Budikka
What is really annoying/chilling is that the writer's view
is "Bush got more votes, so the machines weren't rigged."
Yes, Shrub got more votes fairly this time,
That much is established, no matter what uncertainties still cling to the Diebold(sp)-type
paper-trackless voting machines? I plain don't know, since I don't know how widespread
was the use of such machines, and what percent of the popular vote they account for, in
the aggregate.
Only Nevada offered paper receipts so voters could make sure
and possibly count them. Only Nevada, among states using
computerized voting, has had no irregularities. Coincidence
or safeguard? You be the judge.
Regarding other electronic voting machines, I still hear
the haunting refrain that "they've been in use in [our]
county for ten years, without any problems." Am I alone
in hearing that as "without any trouble-makers being
heard from about them"? We only know if a class of
machines "caused any trouble" if their reported vote
counts are independently auditable, as opposed to the
idea that "recount" now means "tell the machine to spit
out that number again."
US users have claimed "no problems", but not elsewhere. In
New Brunswick, they tried it for a political party conference
and it was a disaster. It was a telephone computer voting
system, but still dependent on electronic recording with no
paper trail.
No party or government in Canada has tried it since.
Bob Dog
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
21 Nov 2004 08:51:19 PM |
|
|
On 21 Nov 2004 01:25:56 -0800, (Bob Dog) wrote:
budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0411201339.44371e96@posting.google.com>...
Some questions about voting patterns and electronic voting machines
have been raised - and there's no paper trail to answer them:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/election.aftermath.ap/index.html
Budikka
What is really annoying/chilling is that the writer's view
is "Bush got more votes, so the machines weren't rigged."
Yes, Shrub got more votes fairly this time,
We have that knowledge, exactly, how?
but how do we
know that there weren't irregularities? Or that there
won't be next time? The issues is not chicken littles,
it's chickenhawks rigging elections.
Since its for Republicans, its for a greater good.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
21 Nov 2004 02:57:17 AM |
|
|
In article <e1e30450.0411201339.44371e96@posting.google.com>,
(Budikka) wrote:
Some questions about voting patterns and electronic voting machines
have been raised - and there's no paper trail to answer them:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/election.aftermath.ap/index.html
There certainly are many questions but, as you say, without a paper
trail, there is no way to be certain.
One thing is certain, however, those damned machines should be banned in
all future elections.
Budikka
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently
in theVirgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened
nation?-Garry Wills, New York Times 11/04/04
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
21 Nov 2004 04:59:31 PM |
|
|
On 20 Nov 2004 13:39:07 -0800, (Budikka) wrote:
Some questions about voting patterns and electronic voting machines
have been raised - and there's no paper trail to answer them:
I've been using them for years. Nobody's complained yet.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
23 Nov 2004 10:27:44 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<md72q01i59eh7m3hhfk321t86due80qdgr@4ax.com>...
On 20 Nov 2004 13:39:07 -0800, (Budikka) wrote:
Some questions about voting patterns and electronic voting machines
have been raised - and there's no paper trail to answer them:
I've been using them for years. Nobody's complained yet.
No you haven't liar. These "paperless" computer voting Diebold
machines are brand new. They have never been used for a Presidential
elelction before, and have only been around for one year (I believe)
in a very few places. Do you think anyone here accepts your lies
anymore?
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
21 Nov 2004 12:04:30 PM |
|
|
On 20 Nov 2004 13:39:07 -0800, (Budikka) wrote:
Some questions about voting patterns and electronic voting machines
have been raised - and there's no paper trail to answer them:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/election.aftermath.ap/index.html
By deliberate and malevolent design. The perfect crime.
Budikka
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
20 Nov 2004 05:21:56 PM |
|
|
TV's Budikka wrote:
Some questions about voting patterns and electronic voting machines
have been raised - and there's no paper trail to answer them:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/election.aftermath.ap/index.html
Whoever approved these paper-less machines should be sitting in a prison
cell for subverting democracy.
--
"Them white boys had me on crystal meth" - some crackhead in GTA:SA
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the e-Machines Vote For Bush?! |
21 Nov 2004 08:50:10 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 17:21:56 -0600, "towelie" <bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote:
TV's Budikka wrote:
Some questions about voting patterns and electronic voting machines
have been raised - and there's no paper trail to answer them:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/19/election.aftermath.ap/index.html
Whoever approved these paper-less machines should be sitting in a prison
cell for subverting democracy.
Republicans/Democrats and Fundamentalist Christians have no interest
in democracy.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
