2006-11-07 00:26:26 · 12 answers · asked by Perplexed 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The reader you put them through keeps track of the bubbles, and the votes
2006-11-07 00:29:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The new Rolling Stone article, Will The Next Election Be Hacked? by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in cludes an on the record claim by a former Diebold employee that they changed the software in the machines the night before Georgia's 2002 primary election. This, or other altered software could still be there for the November election. Of course, the point is, with these machines there is no way to prove that the reported vote counts reflect how the voters voted.
2006-11-07 00:31:37 · answer #2 · answered by dstr 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. The touch screen systems don't.
The optical scanners keep the ballot and can be checked. It's MHO it doesn't get any better than optical scanners. Quick, reliable, easily programmed, rescans don't take any longer than the original count(you could even double check EVERY ballot and compare machine count to machine count for possible tampering), AND there's a paper trail if you really want to do a manual recount.
When it comes to casting the ballot who's idea was it to NOT have a paper trail? Republicans and Democrats alike shold have been screaming and hollering not no, but HELL NO! to not having a paper trail.
When I'm prince of the planet things WILL be different.
2006-11-07 00:42:10 · answer #3 · answered by namsaev 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the hot Rolling Stone article, Will the subsequent Election Be Hacked? via Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in cludes an on the checklist declare via a former Diebold worker that they replaced the utility interior the machines the nighttime in the previous Georgia's 2002 everyday election. This, or different altered utility ought to nonetheless be there for the November election. of direction, the element is, with those machines there is not any thank you to tutor that the suggested vote counts mirror how the electorate voted.
2016-10-21 10:10:46 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most electronic voting machines are stand alone, not networked and they will print out a summery of the voting. It is this way to make it harder hack the system.
2006-11-07 00:35:28 · answer #5 · answered by Beast 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The real question is how did we let such systems be put into place. These machines are available with a paper option.
Why do so many people put such blind faith and trust in their government.
Dstr talks below about a new Rolling Stone article by Robert Kennedy Jr. His one about the 2004 election convinced me, I'm afraid his read this new one. It's bound to be too depressing.
2006-11-07 00:30:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No. And we need to do this or go back to the optical scan systems. I have no idea what Diebold is up to , but you can be sure its no good.
2006-11-07 00:37:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, only a handful of states have that feature required.
2006-11-07 00:43:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
no, quite a few have no paper trail at all
2006-11-07 00:28:34 · answer #9 · answered by spike missing debra m 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No. It's a fertile field for unscrupulous hackers... they could be king makers on the sly.
2006-11-07 00:30:52 · answer #10 · answered by McDreamy 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋