Hey, I love computers. Have worked with them all my life. But...

Hey, I love computers. Have worked with them all my life.

But I love democracy more.

Its easy to count the votes. Look at Canada. We could get the whole thing done in a matter of hours.

We just need three counters per precinct. I don't trust anybody who sells or buys a machine to count my votes. No one. Especially when I know that these Repukes have stolen elections before. Look at Georgia 2002. Look at Florida 2000. Look at California 2004.

This BBV rip-off is so obvious. Do you really think there is anyway to guarantee that your vote can be recounted without a paper ballot? And if we need a paper receipt, why not just vote on the paper itself. It's a shame that millions of words and dollars are spent debating this rip-off, this scam.

I say Count/Recount in one shot. Using paper. Not punched cards. Paper. Fill in the blanks. A standard form. We can do this once every two years, can't we? Touch-screens are for losers. Real men (and women) want paper.

I don't need a paperless ATM which bytes my vote, either locally or on the server. The only server I want is when I go to a restaurant and he/she gives me the bill with a total to look at. I sign it and check the statement at the end of the month.

What do I check when I touch a screen created by known crooks?

In fact I wouldn't blame the hardware, or even the software. Its the Human Factor I worry about. Computers don't have ambitions or goals(yet), they are tools, and like any other tool, they can be both useful and destructive. Depends on the motives of people.

many years. Machines are stupid. They just do what you tell them to do. Sometimes you tell them the wrong thing, unknowingly. Your ALGORITHM is wrong.

But some will tell them the RIGHT way to do the WRONG thing. That is not human error. That is treason.

perfect choice.

Computer voting IS the future. Don't let the potential abuses deter you, just counter them.

Computer voting with a verified paper trail is a great thing, we just have to insist that it happens.

They have mucked up more elections than you or I will ever know.

Sorry. They are worthless, as far as voting is concerned. Unless you have a vested interest in manufacturing them, programming them, selling them or buying them.

They are quite unnecessary. In fact, they are quite dangerous.

In fact, your democracy is at risk because of them.

I apologize. The image of old ladies and dangling Chads is disturbing to many, including me.

My point is that there is a great way to count the vast majority of votes...simple computerized voting. You push the section of the screen dedicated to the face and name of the candidate for whom you want to cast your vote and a paper receipt (which you see) reflects that vote. If there's an error, you can alert election staff.

It would eliminate the confusion some feel with the current "butterfly" ballots and simplify the entire voting process.

According to research by Dan Spillane, systems that were prone to chads should never have been certified in Florida in the first place.

The Data Vote, a punch card system which does not use the pre-punched cards, consistently outperforms TOUCH SCREENS in residual votes. (Over and under votes- no test has ever been done regarding accuracy to my knowledge)

My county uses punch cards. No major problems that I know of.

Should we get rid of punch cards? Probably, with the exception of the DataVote. The real problem is more likely that they can't get service and parts for them. But not because they produce chads. Chads are the product of bad certification procedures and lax or non-existant election practices.

Keep in mind that you were SUPPOSED to pay attention to the chads in Florida, while optical scan counts were being uploaded that did things like input a NEGATIVE 16,022 votes for Gore.

Chads were a diversion, and a way to stampede Congress into another piece of bad legislation.

You can have fraud whether it's a hand count or computer count. But the scale of the potential fraud makes computers the most dangerous.

Voter verified paper ballots- and lots of robust, random audits.

I'm talking touch screens with the candidates' pictures and names. Just touch the picture, and you've voted...the machine asks you to verify and then prints a paper receipt (under glass) and asks you to verify the paper receipt before depositing it in a ballot box.

How is this NOT better?

Words are important under the law.

If there IS a verified paper trail, why not do what we can to eliminate any "mistakes" in the voting process?

I didn't say punch cards were easier to use than touch screens, just as I said they should probably go- but not necessarily because of chads.

What I said was, that the Data Vote, which does not have pre-punched holes, consistently OUTPERFORMS touch screens in tests on residual votes- undervotes and overvotes.

That was not a reflection on ease of use.

In that test on residual votes, the best were hand counted ballots and optical scan. The worst were punch cards and touch screens- except for the DataVote.

If you think about it, there should never be an overvote on a touch screen, ever.

And if the ballots in the test were all filled out, every race, there should never be undervotes on touch screens.

The point I was trying to make is that the PR used to justify paperless voting is bunk.

I think that touch screens with a voter verified paper ballots are the only way to go with touch screens.

Any voting system must produce a voter verified paper ballot.

That's obviously the ONLY way to go with the touch screens.

not PAPER TRAILS. Paper trails have no standing under the law...ballots do!

Training prior to the election, some brush ups for each election and various maintenance work in between would not only decrease unemployment, ensure fair elections, improve reliability, work by candlelight during power outages, they would also save millions of dollars in equipment costs and annual maintenance fees.

I think you've hit on a winning idea here, TIA!

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

They have, again, some nameless guy programming the central count machine and hardly ever look at the physical evidence.

Bev

Its funny. The reason we use computers is to allow us to count faster. But it does not work that way in electronic tabulation of our votes. We get less accuracy, slower vote-counting and, worst of all, the true loser has a chance of winning.

But with three ballot counters per precinct, we get

1) a faster count
2) a built-in recount
3) virtually zero cost, saving millions
4) elimination of the voting machine boongoggle
5) elimination of at least one hundred ways to rig the vote
6) more confidence in our system
7) re-affirmation of our fundamental democratic rights
8) elimination of angst that our vote won't count, saving med expense
9) elimination of time/money spent on fighting election fraud
10) much higher voter turnout,
11) no standing in lines or getting shut out from voting

He was a computer programmer dealing with chads every night. Bugging and debugging all night long.

Vapor Ballots.

blanks, counted and recounted by human people persons. How hard can it be? Do you really love this country?