Even though this is the equivalent of eliminating our right to vote?
2006-08-16 09:29:51 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It is obviously to make sure that those in power stay in power. The voting machine numbers do not even come close to the exit polls anymore. Funny thing, should this have been happening in a foreign land, the US would send troops in to ensure electron honesty. Too late for us, I fear.
2006-08-16 09:33:46 · answer #1 · answered by NeoArt 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
So that we don't know when Bush only has 38 million votes and Kerry has 62 million.
Voting is the only act that makes a democracy a democracy.
Anything else and you have exactly what Iraq had.
A dictator, not a president, not a prime minister, not even a king.
We have a Tyrant that wants no other dictators.
He considers the American public to be a bunch of little whiny-@ssed little dictators. That's why he's never listened to us or even pretended to. That's why he always comes first.
Dictator.
Dubya.
Diebold. They make the e-vote-counting gizmo. And, strangely enough, they also make large political contributions. But to only one party.
Do you want to guess which one?
Bananas do grow in Florida.
And even Ohio.
Pharming by electron.
2006-08-16 09:43:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The "paper trail" on voting machines isn't the WHOLE answer to prevent future events like the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004, but it's a NECESSARY small part of it. If by the "government" you mean the Dumbya Coup, it's as simple as... if we the people collectively LET them cheat, they WILL. We have been allowing them to get away with it. Some people would care more about being cheated by a dime in change than being cheated of their vote which is priceless. Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!
2006-08-16 10:28:31 · answer #3 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Of all the districts in the 2004 US presidential election which used "electronic voting", John Kerry won at ALL the stations - 100% - that printed receipts and lost at ALL the stations where they didn't print.
John Kerry also won at ALL districts - 100% - that continued to use paper ballots.
Think about it. And that's without mentionin the fraud in Ohio during 2004 which helped Shrub "win" that state and thus the election.
2006-08-16 09:55:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The reason voting machines should not provide a written receipt is to prevent to use of any such receipt or written record of a person's vote as evidence in any transaction involvine vote buying or coerscion.
The secret ballot is important.
2006-08-16 09:37:50 · answer #5 · answered by Suzianne 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I assumed it was a response to all the bitching you did in the last election about hanging chads and "intent to vote for". The machines will eliminate all the ambiguity about who you voted for.
And drop the conspiracy theory about "so it can be rigged." The dems could rig it their way just as easy you know.
2006-08-16 09:34:48 · answer #6 · answered by obviously_you'renotagolfer 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Pray tell, when did a voter "ever" receive a receipt when voting?
What kind of receipt are you talking about?
Where do some of you people get your information?
Why am I replying to this? Who am I? Why am I here?
2006-08-16 09:38:58 · answer #7 · answered by ed 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
we've used the "touch reveal" for the final 2 elections. there have been 0 issues in the section we live in yet in spite of this, they weren't Diabold machines the two. in my view, I see no longer something incorrect with having a decision of the two a paper pollor a splash reveal.
2016-10-02 04:19:15 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Brilliant!
2006-08-16 09:32:44 · answer #9 · answered by Olivia 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I will not vote. I already feel disenfranchished with these machines. I have accepted techno-fascist government.
2006-08-16 09:33:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋