"Not One Line Of Software Between A Voter And A Valid Election"

[understandinglife]

Just a friendly reminder ... :hi: everyone.

[aquart]

1. Oh, I like that sentence.

[understandinglife]

2. I wrote it, the first time, within days of the Nov 2004 debacle ....

... been urging folk to focus on that one simple issue ever since.

If you have anything other than people voting on paper, and people - FULLY OBSERVED - counting and tabulating the votes - ON PAPER - with ALL the results properly archived - you have no hope of a valid election. Period.

Software is fantastic - except in any part of the election process ... at least until we have an digital authentication and verification system at least as robust as the world's currency transaction systems.

Peace,
Bob

p.s. The ONLY 'winner' in an election should be THE VOTERS!

[aquart]

10. I want vote counting to be a duty of citizenship, like jury duty.

Either you count or you observe, but you better be there.

[understandinglife]

11. Elegant and Exactly Correct.

Thank you,
Bob

p.s. All these folk posting threads like "if you're candidate won, you wouldn't be complaing" truly do not get it. The only winner or loser in ANY election is the voter, which is fine, as long as YOUR VOTE WAS COUNTED EXACTLY THE WAY YOU INTENDED IT.

We have ZERO reason to think that any vote cast in America today is being counted as it was intended. ZERO.

[RuleOfNah]

16. I am a coder and I endorse this message.

As for verifiable, check out the patent holder for electronic cash and voting...

[understandinglife]

20. Welcome to DU.

[Melissa G]

3. Hi, UL

K&R! Just like old times. The regular bunch is checking in at the clubhouse.
I sure have missed the old crew. :hi:

[understandinglife]

4. I had hoped we'd be able to move on to other issues, but seems the most ...

.... fundamental aspect of our attempt to be a democratic society is still far short of what it is in many other places in the world. We just can't seem to get the 'its who counts the vote' thingy fixed, can we.

Stalin would have loved software - for sure :evilgrin:

:hi:

[puebloknot]

5. It's as simple as "Don't put your hand on that burner; you'll get burned."

We've already been burned in the course of three compromised (dare I say "stolen"?) elections. We the People keep being forced into insanity by repeating the same electoral process over and over, and expecting a different result.

Our election process is going up in smoke over those "proprietary" lines of code you refer to. Harking back to days of yore, it's like telling We the People that indeed, we own the votes, but the ballot box we've stuffed our ballot into is owned by a private individual, so once we've done our stuffing, we're out of the equation. We own an illusion!

[understandinglife]

8. Precisely!! "We own an illusion." --- Perfect summation of the current status of US 'democracy'

:hi:

[understandinglife]

9. dupe ... whoops!!!

:hi:

[SIMPLYB1980]

6. Tired of saying it but check it out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2639218
Bush cries wolf a lot, and that is what you are doing right now.

Edit to add. What happens when their really is a wolf? We get ignored like in Ohio.

[puebloknot]

12. New Hampshire aside, are you denying that elections have been stolen...

...in this country, that we can trust these electronic voting machine companies not to tamper with our elections?

[SIMPLYB1980]

13. No.

I think 2 presidential ones were. The numbers didn't add up. In NH they did if you woluld take the time to read Skinners post.

[puebloknot]

14. I did take the time to read Skinner's post. I also took the time to read...

...Will Pitt's post, and other posts from people with some knowledge of how these polls work. Many do not agree with Skinner's premise.

[SIMPLYB1980]

15. Fine if thats still your opinion I accept it.

Will you respect my sincerity?

[puebloknot]

17. Yes, I will, and I will add that I don't possess the personal skills...

...to read through all this stuff and come to a definite conclusion.

I agree that just because they've stolen elections before, it's not a definite sign they will do it again, but there's reason to be suspicious.

I don't support Hillary, but I also am one of those people who has been feeling some sympathy for her of late. It's a major task for any of us to come to reasoned conclusions when there's so much sh*it floating around out there.

Fool me once, twice....It is a terrible thing to feel we cannot trust that voting has *any* meaning anymore.

Tnaks for your response.

[SIMPLYB1980]

18. No problem.

Every one is on edge and I know I am on a short fuse.

[99th_Monkey]

7. Rec. In case you haven't seen this, check it out.

The Diebold optical scanners did the trick for Hillary, the Dem Nomine-of-Necon-choice.

Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%

Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%

http://www.legitgov.org/nh_machine_vs_paper.html


If you are wondering as to the motive of why the Rethug-owned Diebold Corp. would want Hillary to "win", look no further than this:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080108...

[Wilms]

19. Nice to see you again. n/t

[understandinglife]

21. Thank you. I'm always here. Just wish we could move on to ...

... the major challenges facing humanity, but as long as we have ZERO reason to trust that our vote will be recorded as we intend it, it's a little difficult establishing a trusted governance infrastructure.

Peace,
Bob

[bleever]

22. I can picture that written in the same script as

"We the People" and "When in the course of human events...".

It's right up there with "No taxation without representation".

:hi:

[mod mom]

23. Correctomondo, my friend!

:hi:

[autorank]

24. Elegance in thought and words... axiomatic!

And that's what we get forom understandinglife again and again!

:patriot: