Paul Heslop wrote:
>
> Paul Kinsler wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> I'm not hung up on it, I just love the fact that this farce happened in
> the first place.
I'm sure that the couch potatos of the world are eagerly anticipating
the upcoming US elections. Hijinks will likely ensue on a heretofore
unseen scale.
I'ze scared.
--
Replace "NINE" with "9" to reply.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
|