Interesting response from my Repub Rep.

[crispini]

So it's a pretty standard form letter, there has been no credible evidence of systematic fraud by either party, blah blah, but then this sentence:

"I do not believe that electronic voting machines are any more susceptible to error or fraud than paper ballots and the electronic counting machines used to tally their votes." (Emphasis mine).

What do ya'll think? Leaving aside the obvious goodness of having a big fat paper ballot which can be recounted, is an all electronic system the same, or worse than, a paper ballot + opscan / punchcard with computerized central tabulator system, with regards to error or fraud?

[troubleinwinter]

1. I think he is clueless and is just blowing you off. Meaningless.

[crispini]

2. Oh, there's no doubt about that, he is in fact doing both.

But, source aside, I found it an interesting question. Are there more points of failure and/or security holes in an evoting + tab system vs. an optical scan or punchcard + tab system?

[Chi]

3. As they're gonna find out in Clermont...

As they're gonna find out in Clermont...it is unwise to commit fraud when the original ballots are still around.
Lose the ballots, or leave the proof, bad choices all around.

If an E-vote machine counts wrong, it's a 'glitch' or a 'screen calibration problem'.
If there are missing ballots or altered ballots, there are people to arrest.
Machines don't fear the law 8)

[keepthemhonest]

4. so it sounds like he is admitting

that their are problems with that as well as the electronic voting machines, right?Save that letter.