TruthIsAll
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 01:38 PM
Original message |
Eureka! Is this a fool-proof way to DEMAND a voter-verified paper trail? |
|
Edited on Sun Sep-21-03 01:51 PM by TruthIsAll
My AH-HA moment.
Just a quick thought. We know about the "Equal Protection" canard that Scalia and crew used to steal it for Bush.
We know about the California court decision (on appeal) using the same argument to postpone the recall.
Now...let's use the equal protection argument to demand a paper trail in every jurisdiction where touch screen computers are used.
We touch screen voters DEMAND the protection afforded to ALL other voters who have recourse to an AUDIT TRAIL, in case a recount is necessary - in other words, a paper trail to resolve close elections.
Without a paper trail, we would NOT have equal protection!
|
Deja Q
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 01:41 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Good idea, except the worms wil lwiggle with this excuse: |
|
Computer voting is so easy and accurate, no paper trail is necessary.
And in the contrived, devious, immoral land of the Bushista* empire, expect this illegal hijacking of america to go uncontested.
|
alfredo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. but isn't there proof that the error rate is not that good? Still the fact |
|
that we cannot do a real recount, is important.
|
alfredo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 01:48 PM
Response to Original message |
On the Road
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 01:51 PM
Response to Original message |
4. I Think Legal Challenges Have a Chance of Overturning BBV |
|
Don't know about equal protection, because if everyone in a state uses electronic devices, it's arguably equal.
And personally, I don't care whether there's a paper trail. What's on the paper may have no relation to what's recorded in the computer, and without an audit process which can identify individual voters, there's still no way to verify.
What I think holds more promise is that BBV makes a state unable to fulfill its own recount laws (which every state has). There is no way to do a recount, since unlike any other system, votes are not held individually in any identifiable way. They need to change machines again to fulfil existing laws.
But it's important for public opinion against BBV to develop and for academic studies to keep gaining credibility. Six months from now judges will have to rule in a different climate from last year's elections.
|
TruthIsAll
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. Not true....the paper trail would be the final arbiter in a recount |
|
Edited on Sun Sep-21-03 01:59 PM by TruthIsAll
and would be verified by the voter before being stored in a secure lock box. The purpose is to determine discrepancies, if any, due to machine malfunction. EVERY machine can malfunction.
Now, before an election. one has no way of knowing if a recount WILL be required. Just the mere POSSIBILITY of this contingency, however remote, is reason enough to prepare for it. This is ONLY possible with a VOTER-VERIFIED PAPER TRAIL OF PROOF.
|
oasis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 01:54 PM
Response to Original message |
5. It's important that the issue stays on the front burner. |
KoKo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 01:58 PM
Response to Original message |
7. But what about states like Georgia who are only using Touch Screens? |
|
Isn't that the plan. To "standardize" all the voting machines into just one machine? So if none of them have paper trails that becomes the standard.
|
TruthIsAll
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. Doesn't make a difference. .. |
|
Edited on Sun Sep-21-03 02:08 PM by TruthIsAll
Since a recount is required due to the possibility of machine "malfunction" AND/or FRAUD occurring in THAT particular precinct.
As a practical matter, these machines will not be fully installed in 2004, except possibly in just a few states. So the argument must at least apply to those states which have anything less than 100% computer touch screens.
|
soup
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. There are also provisions for manual recount |
|
if the results are very close. (at least in the FL statutes)
The question 'how do manual recounts proceed - as mandated by law - if there is nothing to recount?' is a really good one. (although I probably worded it poorly)
|
Cocoa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 02:12 PM
Response to Original message |
9. there's no agreement that that specific paper trail is necessary |
|
That's still under dispute, with the opponents of the Holt bill saying that the benefits are not great enough to justify it.
With the CA recall decision, the ACLU relied on data that showed the old machines had higher failure rates for some populations. There's nothing like that with the DRE's.
The Florida decision is I think pretty widely thought to be just plain bogus and politically motivated.
|
TruthIsAll
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. WTF "The benefits are not great enough to justify it" WTF |
|
Edited on Sun Sep-21-03 02:32 PM by TruthIsAll
Yiou mean the benefit in proving that the votes were counted fairly and that no fraud took place? You mean that benefit? Oh.
WTF do you have against a paper trail, COCOA?
Enlighten all of us. Are you proud to assume this as your patriotic slogan: TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOTS DON'T NEED A VOTER-VERIFIED PAPER TRAIL
Would you also go along with
TRUE AMERICANS DON'T NEED MONTHLY BANK STATEMENTS.
TRUE AMERICANS DON'T NEED CREDIT CARD STATEMENTS.
TRUE AMERICANS DON'T NEED SHOPPING RECIPTS.
HELL, IF WE GET A RECEIPT FOR A MOVIE, SHOULDN'T WE GET ONE FOR OUR VOTE?
|
Cocoa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
12. I'm in favor of the paper trail |
|
I always have been in favor of the Holt bill.
I was just pointing out that there is not complete agreement about it.
And the point about the benefits not great enough to justify the "costs" makes sense if you calm down and think about it. The benefit of the paper trail would be incremental, not total. It would not completely prevent fraud, despite the fact that that seems to be an assumption among the activists.
So it's reasonable to debate the thing around exactly how much benefit the paper trail would provide, and also ask what problems the printers could cause, and also what the cost is.
|
grasswire
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
.....over a quote from a Diebold memo, posted on the "report a felony" thread:
"As representative of Diebold on election day, you will be considered the paragon of knowledge and authority with respect to the jurisdiction’s election, even though you may in fact be the least qualified person on site. In light of this, present yourself in as diplomatic, reassuring, and professional a manner as possible.
|
Cocoa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
|
First of all, that wasn't from a memo, it was from an employees manual.
Second, what exactly freaks you out about this? Does it somehow support the BBV fraud theory? If so, how, I don't get it.
What exactly is the Diebold rep's role on election day? I don't know exactly, so I'm not sure how much to make of this. I suspect their role is kind of a PR thing, to be there to make people feel good about Diebold.
|
Gordon25
(246 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
19. One Question, Cocoa, one more time... |
|
...just how in the **&%#*$ do you do a recount if there is no voter verified paper trail of ballots?! State law in my state requires a recount in certain circumstances. Your statement: "there is not complete agreement about it" is clever since it is always true as long as you don't agree. But it doesn't mean anything.
I"m sure you are going to reply that you were talking about agreement amongst "the experts" you are so fond of quoting anonymously and repetitively. But I don't need no stinkin' experts to tell me that WITHOUT A PAPER TRAIL I HAVE PERSONALLY VERIFIED ABOUT HOW I VOTED THERE IS NO WAY TO RECOUNT MY VOTE IN AN ORDERED RECOUNT. Can't you grasp this simple fact?
Or don't you care?
Gordon25
|
TruthIsAll
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-22-03 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
20. A Repuke would say that since we have a computer, no errors are possible |
|
ergo, no recount is necessary..
Tell that to Volusia county and the 16,022 votes taken away from Gore..
|
Cocoa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-22-03 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
21. It has nothing to do with what I think |
|
It's a fact that some individuals and groups don't think that voter verified paper trail is necessary.
I'm not going to argue their side for them too strongly, partly because I would much prefer the paper trail, but one thing I've heard them say is that the votes are stored in multiple places and that there actually is a requirement in HAVA that some way of doing a recount is provided by the machines.
But don't bother arguing the points with me. I'm not advocating their position, I'm just pointing out that there is opposition out there.
|
Gordon25
(246 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-22-03 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
25. I think we might actually agree... |
|
...on some things in your post, Cocoa.
"It's a fact that some individuals and groups don't think that voter verified paper trail is necessary." Agreed. Of course it is also a fact that some individuals and groups don't think it is necessary to operate on a child with a ruptured appendix, too; that faith and prayer are adequate.
"...I would much prefer the paper trail..." Agreed. If by paper trail you mean a voter verified paper ballot which can be counted by hand if a judge orders a hand recount.
"...one thing I've heard them say is that the votes are stored in multiple places..." Well we certainly agree on that. In GEMS we know there are two separate sets of books in which the votes are stored, one of which is "secured" and one of which is wide open to manipulation. But consider that for a moment. "...the votes are stored in multiple places..." In a paperless system that could only mean in different places in ram, or in different sectors of some magnetic or optical storage medium. Or on a summary print out, you might say. But that is only a print out of locations in magnetic or electronic memory. Without a paper ballot I have seen marked as I voted and deposited into a secured receptical, there is nothing but bits and bytes to store.
"...a requirement in HAVA that some way of doing a recount is provided by the machines." I think you are right about that. But the devil is in the details; i.e., the legal definition of a recount. In my state, as in most with Diebold equipment, there have been election laws enacted which call for recounts to be done by running the ballots through the machines again. So on paperless DREs what do you do, store your magnetic cartridges for a legislated length of time, and plug them in and have the same machines read them again? More importantly, for the voter on those machines, there is absolutely no way without a paper ballot to verify that they can be sure the machine stored their vote the way it was cast. In Arizona, only the State Supreme Court can order a hand recount, even though we use optical scan systems in multiple jurisdictions in the state. The laws make the machine count the document of record in the election. Call me old fashioned, but I want the ballot as marked by voter to be the document of record in any and every election.
"But don't bother arguing the points with me." No bother. I enjoy discussing these issues.
"I'm not advocating their position," Maybe playing the devil's advocate? Just a bit?
"I'm just pointing out that there is opposition out there." It's nice to end on a note of such complete agreement. There is, indeed, opposition out there. In more ways than one.
Gordon25
|
sspiderjohn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 02:53 PM
Response to Original message |
14. shouldn't a NATIONAL election guarantee equality NATIONALLY? |
|
maybe it's not just a state issue
|
srubick
(56 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 02:59 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Can you imagine what would happen if the trillions of dollars and cents traded every day were not accurately accounted for? The fact that we can not account for all the votes on any given election day should be a LOUD ALARM that something is not right! I am personally starting to think that we have been subject to gross manipulation of election results for some time now. It is time we bring this issue to the front.
|
grasswire
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
17. congressional investigation |
|
There needs to be a congressional investigation of Diebold, for starters.
|
dusty64
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-22-03 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
22. Just another important |
|
reason to get the repukes out of the House and Senate. There will be NO investigation as long as they control things and no investigation means it will be that much harder to get rid of them.
|
newyawker99
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-21-03 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
hunter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-22-03 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
23. Those "trillions of dollars" are not accounted for either... |
|
Sadly... the light at the end of this tunnel is a train.
The same folks who are so good at money laundering will now bring us election laundering. Now it's all about the size of the slush fund you control. Very soon it will also be about the number of voting machines you control. Imagine that!
Welcome again to DU, srubick.
|
DemBones DemBones
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-22-03 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
24. Good point, srubick, and welcome to DU! |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 17th 2024, 03:09 PM
Response to Original message |