Let me get this straight, the same people who are typing away on keyboards, cruising the internet, downloading free music, withdrawing money on ATMs, filling out bubbles for their graduate school exams on ScanTron sheets are afraid of electronic voting machines and modernizing Social Security?
Sounds like politics to me. I want to see a principled liberal walk into a bank and demand to make a transaction on the paper ledger in the basement instead of the ATM.
2006-11-07 07:22:51 · 5 answers · asked by ABC 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Anything which would give the Demorats a chance to loose votes, they are "agin."
2006-11-07 07:24:59 · answer #1 · answered by Spirit Walker 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The fear isn't electronic voting.
The concern is that most of the voting machines have no paper trail. They do not produce one internally as votes are cast, and there are no scantron sheets the voters can take home after voting. Unlike ATMs, no receipt is produced to show that the vote was counted correctly.
Thus, if there is any data collection problem, or worse, valid legal claims of tampering or fraud, there is absolutely no way to recover the original voting data. There is only the electronic copy held in proprietary software, and unverifiable by any external means.
It's not the electronic aspect. It's the fact that the votes are unverifiable, and the tally cannot be reconstructed through any other records. Thus, voting has just become a faith-based initiative, since the the voters must have blind faith that the results are correct.
And by the way -- I've been working with computers since punch cards in the 1970s, and I still walk in to a branch and see a teller (going miles out of my way) to get a paper transaction record when making any significant deposit.
{EDIT} Linked below is a news article on problems that have arisen with electronic voting today. Note the fact that roughly 1/3 of all voting is taking place on equipment that has never been used before in a federal election (if at all).
2006-11-07 15:32:03 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Electronic voting is subject to hacking. Social security is a safety net for the aged. Contributions shouldn't be subjected to the risk of volatile stock or other funds, and associated broker and trading fees. If Social Security receipts hadn't been put into the general fund, it would have had enough money to sustain itself until 2080. Bush precipitated the crisis, deliberately. It's always been his goal to privitize Social Security. He lied in 2000 when he agreed with Gore that the funds would be put in a lock box, and would not be spent on anything else.
2006-11-07 15:29:40 · answer #3 · answered by Red Herring 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
problem is being afraid of technology.
most voting machines are better than the 'paper' method... because the ones I know actually do produce paper trail as a verification backup ... just like a ATM transaction.
The one specific one I am aware of, if the paper output doesnt match what u think you voted for... the people in charge can immediately invalidate your previous vote, record it and then allow a 2nd effort with a 2nd paper trail.
Even on electronic voting there should always be a 'paper output' to help the voter get confirmation that their vote went the way they wanted.
2006-11-08 13:43:12 · answer #4 · answered by pcreamer2000 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If a sleazy Republican is running the bank, you should.
2006-11-07 15:25:01 · answer #5 · answered by PT's Swan Lake 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋