SP33Demon
Lifer
- Jun 22, 2001
- 27,928
- 142
- 106
Multiple systems with the right checks and balances (all independently certified by multiple organizations using the current fed standards) IS better. Why should a single private company have a monopoly on a Constitutional right (voting), decentralize the process and the entire system improves (as we are already seeing) because corruption is then minimalized through variation. For example, more studies likeOriginally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Absolute power corrupts, and this is a good example.
So having multiple competeing systems in place, that will most likely be different, is a better approach?
this one by CA in 2007 should be conducted by states to restore confidence in the voting process.
All in all, states are going to use a corrupt voting system (e.g. machines) if the state itself is wrought with corruption. For example, the Diebold CEO lobbying for Bush in 2004 in Ohio and guaranteeing him the election, of course Ohio used Diebold. Any red state would also partake in that company, it was that simple. The first step to smashing this process is encouraging better, safer, more transparent systems be created in conjunction with voting in a bipartisan group to lead your state (in a perfect reality).