• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Bye Bye Electronic Voting.

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2...tingoutevotingmachines

Voting Out E-Voting Machines

is hard to believe now what a darling touch-screen voting was seven years ago. After the Florida presidential vote recount debacle - which made traditional paper voting, especially the infamous "butterfly" ballots and hanging chads, look positively Third World - electronic voting was embraced as the way back from America's electoral humiliation. Some 50,000 touch-screen machines were bought in 37 states at a cost of almost a quarter of a billion dollars.


The reversal since then couldn't be more stunning - as indicated by a bill in Congress introduced this past week by Florida Senator Bill Nelson and Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, which would ban touch-screen voting (also known as direct recording electronic voting, or DRE) in federal elections starting in 2012. "We have to start setting a goal on this," Nelson tells TIME. "Voters have to feel confident that their ballot will count as intended."


After the initial excitement, it didn't take long for voters to lose trust in the new system, as they increasingly deemed DRE too complex, unreliable and insecure; the only thing worse than a confusing paper trail, it turned out, was no paper trail at all. (It didn't help that the main touch-screen machine supplier, Diebold, was widely accused in 2004 of ties to the Republican Party.) Fifteen Florida counties adopted touch-screen as well, and they learned the pitfalls of it the hard way, dealing with controversies like a 2006 congressional race in the Sarasota district, where an astonishing 15% of the ballots cast registered no choice at all - in a race that was decided by a razor-thin margin of 386 votes






Of ALL the Republican screw-ups the last 7 years this was the worst.
The electoral process MUST have the full faith and confidence of Americans.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Of ALL the Republican screw-ups the last 7 years this was the worst.
What? Going from a faulty electronic system to ballots worse than the Iraq war? OK...

--

The funny thing here is that electronic voting is far and away a simpler technical issue than even banking, which we rely on totally. That the country doesn't feel five years is enough time to put a robust system in place is pathetic.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Of ALL the Republican screw-ups the last 7 years this was the worst.
What? Going from a faulty electronic system to ballots worse than the Iraq war? OK...

--

The funny thing here is that electronic voting is far and away a simpler technical issue than even banking, which we rely on totally. That the country doesn't feel five years is enough time to put a robust system in place is pathetic.


Yes. While Iraq was a mistake of monumental proportions the electronic voting fiasco was an attack on our very Democracy.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
I agree voting must have the "full faith and confidence of Americans" and that's why I support paper reciepts, ID checks, and banning same day registration. If the system can be manipulated then it needs to be fixed. Each of those 3 things would provide a more secure voting system than we have today.

Lets get to it Dems - you've only been promising "reform" for how long?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Of ALL the Republican screw-ups the last 7 years this was the worst.
What? Going from a faulty electronic system to ballots worse than the Iraq war? OK...
--

The funny thing here is that electronic voting is far and away a simpler technical issue than even banking, which we rely on totally. That the country doesn't feel five years is enough time to put a robust system in place is pathetic.
Seriously. On both counts. Luddites beware, e-voting is nigh.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Of ALL the Republican screw-ups the last 7 years this was the worst.
What? Going from a faulty electronic system to ballots worse than the Iraq war? OK...

--

The funny thing here is that electronic voting is far and away a simpler technical issue than even banking, which we rely on totally. That the country doesn't feel five years is enough time to put a robust system in place is pathetic.


Yes. While Iraq was a mistake of monumental proportions the electronic voting fiasco was an attack on our very Democracy.
And eavesdropping, suspension of habeus corpus, torturing detainees, juryrigging the DOJ....?
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator and Elite Member
Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
23,261
5,101
146
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I agree voting must have the "full faith and confidence of Americans" and that's why I support paper reciepts, ID checks, and banning same day registration. If the system can be manipulated then it needs to be fixed. Each of those 3 things would provide a more secure voting system than we have today.
:thumbsup:

Lets get to it Dems - you've only been promising "reform" for how long?
Why aren't you bent your party hasn't done anything about it in all the time they were in control?

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I'd really suggest you change your topic summary. I don't think it is appropriate or accurate to call this a "Republican screw up". (A cynic might consider it a great move, in fact. It may have won them major elections.)

That said, the sooner we eliminate electronic voting devices that lack a valid audit mechanism, the better. I agree, we need a process that earns Americans' confidence.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I agree voting must have the "full faith and confidence of Americans" and that's why I support paper reciepts, ID checks, and banning same day registration. If the system can be manipulated then it needs to be fixed. Each of those 3 things would provide a more secure voting system than we have today.
:thumbsup:

Lets get to it Dems - you've only been promising "reform" for how long?
Why aren't you bent your party hasn't done anything about it in all the time they were in control?
Uh - I was. However, the Dems have been the ones whining since 2000 about it and always bleating about how they were going to "reform" it. They have yet to do a damn thing about it except make it more open to fraud.(illegals with licenses, same day registration, etc)
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Another troll thread from OP. :roll:

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I agree voting must have the "full faith and confidence of Americans" and that's why I support paper reciepts, ID checks, and banning same day registration. If the system can be manipulated then it needs to be fixed. Each of those 3 things would provide a more secure voting system than we have today.
:thumbsup:

Yet OP opposes ID checks and opposes banning same day registration. As do a good many right here on this board. Partisan hackery at its finest. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,561
3
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Another troll thread from OP. :roll:

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I agree voting must have the "full faith and confidence of Americans" and that's why I support paper reciepts, ID checks, and banning same day registration. If the system can be manipulated then it needs to be fixed. Each of those 3 things would provide a more secure voting system than we have today.
:thumbsup:

Yet OP opposes ID checks and opposes banning same day registration. As do a good many right here on this board. Partisan hackery at its finest. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:
Yeah, like 500,000 people are going to show up and do a same day registration and affect an election.
Unlike hacking a computer system and changing 500,000 votes in a few seconds.
It is virtually inconceivable that large numbers of illegal aliens are voting in Americas elections. If this were the case some right wing wacko voting district or state would be arresting them in droves.
The people who are against same day registration and for showing of picture i.d. are using the fact that poor people would have an easier time voting. Which would benefit Republicans.

 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Unlike hacking a computer system and changing 500,000 votes in a few seconds.
Again, we all rely on a banking system, which is far more complex than a voting system that takes one of several options and brainlessly tabs it into a database somewhere.

This is not difficult to create, it's simply glaring, gross mismanagement that has allowed the electronic voting problem to propagate.
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
684
0
0
Originally posted by: techs

Yeah, like 500,000 people are going to show up and do a same day registration and affect an election.
What about having 5 million people across the country voting illegally? I suppose this is as equally an absurd idea in your mind. Either that, or you don't have a problem with them voting for your candidates.

It is virtually inconceivable that large numbers of illegal aliens are voting in Americas elections.
Give me a good reason why. They live here, they work here, there is nothing to stop them from voting... why wouldn't they?

If this were the case some right wing wacko voting district or state would be arresting them in droves.
This scenario is virtually inconceivable. I don't need a reason why either.

The people who are against same day registration and for showing of picture i.d. are using the fact that poor people would have an easier time voting. Which would benefit Republicans.
That doesn't make a lick of sense. I can't even decipher your position from that statement.

 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
2
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Unlike hacking a computer system and changing 500,000 votes in a few seconds.
Again, we all rely on a banking system, which is far more complex than a voting system that takes one of several options and brainlessly tabs it into a database somewhere.

This is not difficult to create, it's simply glaring, gross mismanagement that has allowed the electronic voting problem to propagate.
I wish we could just chalk it up to mismanagement... I have forever believed it to be intentionally easy to hack
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: techs

-snip-

Of ALL the Republican screw-ups the last 7 years this was the worst.
The electoral process MUST have the full faith and confidence of Americans.
Repub screw up? How so?

The 2000 (bogus) election ballot problems were done by Dems in a Dem district run by Dems.

Otherwise, I prefer the paper ballots. I don't give a sh!t if some decrepit old Dem geezbags can't figure it out.

Fern
 

NaughtyGeek

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,065
0
71
I'm just glad to see them gone. Something as important as voting yet not even as secure as the freaking ATMs the companies make is rather disturbing. The pisspoor design of the system is not all to blame on the republicans either. To state as much is nothing more than partisan flame bait.

As to the legal illegals, how anyone can view that as a non-issue baffles me. Personally, I don't want large numbers of people who are here illegally making decisions on who's going to be running our government in any way let alone the presidency. The licenses for illegals in NY is nothing more than Billary padding her votes with those who stand to benefit most from the socialist utopia she's promising.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: techs

-snip-

Of ALL the Republican screw-ups the last 7 years this was the worst.
The electoral process MUST have the full faith and confidence of Americans.
Repub screw up? How so?

The 2000 (bogus) election ballot problems were done by Dems in a Dem district run by Dems.

Otherwise, I prefer the paper ballots. I don't give a sh!t if some decrepit old Dem geezbags can't figure it out.

Fern
Yup. And it was Dems that were pushing for electronic voting. Funny how they complained all the way up to election day during the 2006 elections until they won and then they shutup.

Meanwhile, numerous Dems have been busted for election fraud (ACORN and a couple of Dems in Ohio I think).
 

maddogchen

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2004
8,905
2
76
i don't get it, how hard can it be? you check in, they verify your identity, they give you a card to operate the machine. it takes your votes, it should print out two copies, you check the hard copies with what it says you selected. you accept it. you put one of the hard copies into a ballot box where they can do paper checking if necessary. you take home the other hard copy.
 

dyna

Senior member
Oct 20, 2006
813
61
91
Originally posted by: maddogchen
i don't get it, how hard can it be? you check in, they verify your identity, they give you a card to operate the machine. it takes your votes, it should print out two copies, you check the hard copies with what it says you selected. you accept it. you put one of the hard copies into a ballot box where they can do paper checking if necessary. you take home the other hard copy.
Its not difficult. I'm sure the engineer(s) and/or programmer(s) that designed the electronic voting machines are screaming, "idiots!"
 

Gneisenau

Senior member
May 30, 2007
264
0
0
The only hack proof form of election is to make me the sole voter. After all I know who I voted for.

On a side note. As your newly elected president, and newly elected congressman/senitor from every state, I only have two things to say; "All you politicians that lost have 60 min to pack you bags and get the hell out of Washington. I also have a few nominations for supreme court justices to fill the vacantcies that will suddenly open up any moment now...That is all."
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Pabster
Another troll thread from OP. :roll:

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I agree voting must have the "full faith and confidence of Americans" and that's why I support paper reciepts, ID checks, and banning same day registration. If the system can be manipulated then it needs to be fixed. Each of those 3 things would provide a more secure voting system than we have today.
:thumbsup:

Yet OP opposes ID checks and opposes banning same day registration. As do a good many right here on this board. Partisan hackery at its finest. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:
Yeah, like 500,000 people are going to show up and do a same day registration and affect an election.
Unlike hacking a computer system and changing 500,000 votes in a few seconds.
It is virtually inconceivable that large numbers of illegal aliens are voting in Americas elections. If this were the case some right wing wacko voting district or state would be arresting them in droves.
The people who are against same day registration and for showing of picture i.d. are using the fact that poor people would have an easier time voting. Which would benefit Republicans.
Local elections have swung on a single vote.

Statewide elections have swung on a less than 100 votes.

Only a few thousand votes were the difference in the '04 elections in a few small states.

Three of those states coiuld have swung the election to Kerry.


 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: maddogchen
i don't get it, how hard can it be? you check in, they verify your identity, they give you a card to operate the machine. it takes your votes, it should print out two copies, you check the hard copies with what it says you selected. you accept it. you put one of the hard copies into a ballot box where they can do paper checking if necessary. you take home the other hard copy.
It shouldn't be difficult but then you start getting government committees and bureaucrats involved and the whole project goes to pot.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Local elections have swung on a single vote.

Statewide elections have swung on a less than 100 votes.

Only a few thousand votes were the difference in the '04 elections in a few small states.

Three of those states coiuld have swung the election to Kerry.
That's a good point. Our last Mayoral Election swung on fewer than 50 votes.

But it does no good to point out such things to a hack like OP. He is all for open polling stations where illegals can come in and vote. So long as the (majority) of the votes are for "his side" he sees no problem with it.

 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,434
79
91
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Local elections have swung on a single vote.

Statewide elections have swung on a less than 100 votes.

Only a few thousand votes were the difference in the '04 elections in a few small states.

Three of those states coiuld have swung the election to Kerry.
That's a good point. Our last Mayoral Election swung on fewer than 50 votes.

But it does no good to point out such things to a hack like OP. He is all for open polling stations where illegals can come in and vote. So long as the (majority) of the votes are for "his side" he sees no problem with it.
and you wonder why they won't support voter identification....i voted today and all it took was a signature next to my name. The rest of my family is on vacation in vegas; would have been very easy for me to send someone else in and have them sign on the lines next to my father, brother, etc.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: Sinsear
and you wonder why they won't support voter identification....i voted today and all it took was a signature next to my name. The rest of my family is on vacation in vegas; would have been very easy for me to send someone else in and have them sign on the lines next to my father, brother, etc.
Yep, that's exactly how it works here. Nothing required other than a scrawl next to a name in a book. It's frightening, to be honest.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY