What is the other side to the vote count issue?

[DaveT]

I've never heard one yet.

If you can't verify the results of an election and if computers are counting the votes, it is obvious that the results of elections can be manipulated.

I gather that the original premise for electronic voting systems was to prevent the unfortunate situation in 2000 when the ballots themselves became degraded with manual handling -- the "hanging chad" phenomenon. From that premise, however, to this new system in which nobody can be sure about the results is a step backward rather than foreward.

Is there any coherent argument for electronic voting?

In the absence of a counterargument, the only reason why anyone would oppose a national standard for verifiable election tabulation would be a desire to steal elections. Am I missing something here?

The deafening silence in defense of electronic voting systems is what had me on the edge of hysteria leading up to November 7 -- and nothing I've seen other than my side winning yet answers the question as to why this stupid problem hasn't been solved. In fact, it has occurred to me that, for all any of us knows, George Soros could have hired a platoon of lefty computer geeks and stole Missouri, Montana and Virginia for our side.

If this problem is not addressed immediately, it is time for all of us to don our tinfoil beenies and recognize that we are watching a charade -- a charade that let us win this round, in order to make it easier to steal the next one.

For the record, I was not one of the doomsayers predicting election night theft -- in fact, I figured that this particular election would NOT be stolen by the GOP for the obvious reason that a politically significant number of people were onto the game. I've seen the threads that suggest the margins may have been trimmed and a few races stolen -- if true, that is consistent with my own pretzel logic about "them" letting us win this time.

But the fundamental question does not need any conspiracy theorizing to make it valid. It is the single most one-sided issue in history.

We need to be able to verify the results of an election. Is there any answer to this common sense?

[baldguy]

1. You don't get it.

The ability to fix elections ... keeping the tabulation methodology secret ... No verifiable paper trail ... No national standard ... these *ARE* the benefits of electronic voting.

[DaveT]

2. Well, maybe I get it now, and I think you're right.

In the absence of a counterargument, the only reason why anyone would oppose a national standard for verifiable election tabulation would be a desire to steal elections. Am I missing something here?