Quick Question about Recounts -- What good will it do?

[AmyCrat]

Correct me if I'm wrong...

but where there are paper ballots (even if they are optically scanned) I understand doing recourts. Makes sense.

But what good does it do to do recounts in areas where there was electronic voting? As we know, there is NO paper trail. All they can do it have the computer spit out the same results again. If those results are wrong, there's nothing to prove or disprove it.

So how will recounts prove or disprove anything related to fraud? There will always be the arguments that e-voting machines are more accurate than scanners, etc. etc. and hence no reason to disbelieve the results. Doubt isn't proof.

...but we need MORE than recounts.

[ClassWarrior]

1. In areas with electronic voting, I believe the goal is...

...to audit the machines, to find out what's in their processors. If there's "funny code" in there, there's plenty of good to be gained by doing this.

NGU.

[indigobusiness]

2. There is the possibility of cracking open a scandal of corruption.

And, one of who knows what proprtion? Perhaps we've witnessed a bloodless coup? There are enough clues to justify the effort. We'd be derelict not to ask all the questions.

[Paligal]

3. I'm with you- recounts worthless

I think the recounts will merely spit out the same numbers they spit out the first time. That's already proving to be the case. But audits and what Bev is doing, now THAT'S where we should be focusing. Recounting in electronic voting areas simply means that they stick the same memory card into a machine, and it spews out the same fraudulent (I believe) numbers. Then they (the Republicans) turn around and say, "See, we told you you were crackpots. Nothing wrong. No difference." And then we get dismissed and forgotten.
I say, recounts are useless in this case, so I say GO BEV!!!! Audit! Dig! Let's get those machines and poke around in their memory. From what I understand from computer nerd friends, even "erasing" memory is not completely foolproof. It costs thousands of dollars, but they CAN actually take a computer chip into a sterile environment and physically recover data that has been erased. I read about it somewhere too.

[ahyums]

6. yes but most of Ohio does not have electronic voting areas ie.e no paper

trail. There is a paper trail in most of Ohio and if only Blackwell et al could somehow be hurried up and a recount happen soon there would be the chance of changing the outcome of the election. The chance, and that its self is worth fighting for I think.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. I know of no one suggesting "recounts" on paperless BBV Machines.

Did I miss something?

[ahyums]

5. The vast majority of Ohio ballots are either punch card or optical

they can be hand counted and recounting Ohio does have the potential of changing the presidential result even at this late stage.

[Chili]

7. the electronic machines in Ohio are not Diebold, and are not...

...completely "uncountable." They're different - I'll have to look it up...

EDIT - shoot, I can't find where I read that... they're not Diebold, but it still means somebody has to get their hands on the machines, and that's what they'll fight tooth and nail.

[AmyCrat]

8. Interesting Chili...

if you dig up the link, post it. I'd be interested to know! Thanks

[Chili]

9. I'm going to keep looking, AmyCrat...

...and will post it...

[Cowboy Joe2k]

10. Paperless machines can not be recounted that is the point.

that would mean that the voters who used paperless machines were not afforded equal protection. a clear violation of the 14th amendment.

[Paligal]

11. Lawsuit?

Anyone filed one on that charge? Interesting...