🚀 go-pugleaf

<bonitakale@netscape.net> wrote in message 
news:1158432285.605092.321890@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
>> Some goober recently challenged the notion that electronic voting
>> machines are-- at best-- prone to hacking, glitches and misuse, both
>> intentional and accidental.
>>
>> Here is a rather startling, not to say frightening, analysis of one
>> e-voting machine, from Princeton University:
>>
>> http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/
>>
>> The full research paper is available for download in .pdf at the website.
>
> Yes, very false frugality to move to computers at the expense of trust.
>
> Bonita

I grew up in Boston where "Hizzoner" James Michael Curley was re-elected to
be the mayor while he was in federal jail for income tax evasion. A very
fine Irish-American elderly lady was interviewed on the radio as how she
could vote for a crook.  She huffed, "Well, he may be a crook, but he's OUR
crook."  Meaning that she would always vote for the Irish Catholic Democrat 
as
opposed to the English Protestant Republicans who had recently lost the 
demographic
battle.

If anyone remembers the 1960 election, and the resultant stories about the 
Chicago vote, then something becomes apparent.

The Democrats do not want a machine to count votes because they think that 
the Republicans will *fix* it.  The Republicans already think that the 
Democrats have *fixed* the people that count the votes.

We don't actually need any more automation that we currently have.  We 
already take a credit card, and a code, to an ATM and get cash - which is a 
highly secure environment.  Just use that network to vote.  A credit card is 
a better ID than the driver's license (which is easily forged) used now, at 
least in California - where I am.  I'll bet neither party wants a system 
that *cannot* be fixed.