Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Electronic Voting Debacle
> It's a little like locking the door after the Bush got in
> though, isn't it?
Bush got elected because the result hinged on one close ballot,
pushed in his favour by dodgy counting of the physical records of
voting. Close ballot results are often controversial,
with much debate over how to interpret ticks, crosses, chads, or
the other creative processes by which voters don't (or can't)
quite follow the instructions exactly.
The electronic voting schemes described in the article have
no permanent physical record of how people voted, so recounts
are an impossibility; furthermore the machines are so insecure
the totals could be changed before, during, or after the
voting period, pretty much by anyone -- but especially so by
"friends" of the companies selling them. And since there is
no physical record, a recount is impossible.
With such machines, an evil Bush-oid could have skipped the
tedious process of recounting, and simply chosen the voting
totals they wanted. As could an evil anti-Bush-ite, or anyone
with access to the machines or their communications. At least
the Florida counting was visibly controversial, so processes
can be corrected.
Don't get so hung up on the Bush-Florida thing.
#Paul
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
|