Paul Kinsler wrote:
> Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Electronic Voting Debacle
>
> > It's a little like locking the door after the Bush got in
> > though, isn't it?
>
> Bush got elected because the result hinged on one close ballot,
> pushed in his favour by dodgy counting of the physical records of
> voting. Close ballot results are often controversial,
> with much debate over how to interpret ticks, crosses, chads, or
> the other creative processes by which voters don't (or can't)
> quite follow the instructions exactly.
>
> The electronic voting schemes described in the article have
> no permanent physical record of how people voted, so recounts
> are an impossibility; furthermore the machines are so insecure
> the totals could be changed before, during, or after the
> voting period, pretty much by anyone -- but especially so by
> "friends" of the companies selling them. And since there is
> no physical record, a recount is impossible.
>
> With such machines, an evil Bush-oid could have skipped the
> tedious process of recounting, and simply chosen the voting
> totals they wanted. As could an evil anti-Bush-ite, or anyone
> with access to the machines or their communications. At least
> the Florida counting was visibly controversial, so processes
> can be corrected.
>
> Don't get so hung up on the Bush-Florida thing.
>
> #Paul
I'm not hung up on it, I just love the fact that this farce happened in
the first place.
--
Paul.
--------------------------------------------------------------
to look at
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
|