I think we should have only a paper ballot system and no electronic voteing system, I think there is to many ways to cheat the system when you got computers doing the job.
2007-12-09 03:02:34 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I think we should just be able to vote from home! and as many times as we want to. I mean GB elected himself, so what's it matter?
2007-12-09 03:05:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Paperless electronic voting machines have been tried and found wanting. In every state using them - since 2002, in Florida - there has not been one election lacking serious failures, claims of count manipuation, and in the matter of Ohio in the 2004 election, obvious fraud.
There are multiple reasons why the machines have not already been junked and replaced. One is simple inertia - too much money has been spent, too many people engaged in a complex system of conducting elections using the machines, and too little determined leadership for a nationwide replacement. another is simple corruption. In Florida, the voting machine company BOUGHT Jeb Bush and the Legislature.
I was involved in the process of offering tesimony and proposed voting system solutions to the so-called blue-ribbon commission Jeb boy set up after the debacle of 2000. As in the corrupt balloting process of 2000, Katherine Harris was in the replacement voting machine decision process to her aristocratic elbows - and just as crooked and partisan then as before. (Thank GOODNESS that stupid airhead has been forced out of public life!)
It IS possible to conduct an honest and almost fraud-free election using electronic equipment, but it will not be CHEAP. Machines MUST use a paper input ballot, much as today's "Lotto" machines use a pencil-marked form to issue a lottery ticket. this device ensures that there is a first-stage backup in case of system failure or demand for recounts. The paper input ballots must be collected after casting votes, and LOCKED in secure containers kept under CONSTANT supervision by more than one person at a time until the election results are settled and certified.
In addition, EVERY voter must be issued a paper receipt that he or she must physically verify duplicates the recorded electronic ballot before the vote can be counted. ideally, these receipts would be marked or stamped after recording the votes, and placed in a sealed envelope for the voter to retain until after certification of returns. Thus, in the event of a complete foulup, it is possible that the voters could present their certified ballots for a recount - but of course, what a mess that would be!
My favorite proposal is to adapt the Lotto machines for voting. There are machines in every street, people could cast their ballots ANYWHERE. The machines use a paper input form already and produce a receipt already. Nearly everyone already knows HOW to use these machines. the system is exceptionally secure and difficult to hack. The results are IMMEDIATE. Voter fraud can be prevented by sending every registered voter a one-time-use electronic identity card they use to validate their ballots the same way a credit card is employed to pay for a lotto ticket.
Of course, this poses a few practical problems but they are all easily addressed. And it's CHEAP on the front end. The cost to set it up is low, the turnaround time is a matter of weeks, and the results are darned near bullte-proof. The real cost is the back-end security of the ballots and supervision.
No wonder the GOP doesn't like it - they will LOSE and get no more ballot machine kickback money!
2007-12-09 11:58:20 · answer #2 · answered by Der Lange 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Electronic is fine, if there is a verifiable physical audit trail. Companies like Diebold, who claim they can't do it, have been doing it for the ATMs they create since back in the 80s.
It doesn't have to be one or the other, an electronic system with a clearly understandable receipt that a voter drops into the "audit box" on the way out is a good hybrid.
OCR ballots are also a good blend between electronic tabulation and having physical proof.
2007-12-09 11:17:38 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes, we definitely need the paper ballot. Electronic leaves no paper trail. VERY dangerous in what is supposed to be a democracy.
Peace.
2007-12-09 11:05:32 · answer #4 · answered by -Tequila17 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
i had heard that the CEO of Diebold said that in 2004 he would see to it that Bush was made president. Diebold makes the voting machines. It was also found that these voting machines could be very easily manipulated and without paper trails there is now way to verify that the votes were accurately counted. without a paper trail it sounds like corporate america could very easily put whoever they want into office.
2007-12-09 11:24:27 · answer #5 · answered by benjamin r 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I agree. Much easier to hack a machine rather than cast fake paper ballots.
2007-12-09 11:07:00 · answer #6 · answered by WooleyBooley again 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Electronic voting system is better and faster than the paper voting. It will bring honest results. It will be similar to your ATM and computerized colleges and universities registration forms.
2007-12-09 11:06:36 · answer #7 · answered by Mutya P 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I completely agree, and I am Rebulican...so what!?
I think it is too easy to cheat the system with electronic systems. With paper, you can't "change" any answers.
2007-12-09 11:07:15 · answer #8 · answered by Amber F 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think we can be cheated either way. It's not open to the public to make sure they really counted the ballots right is it?
2007-12-09 11:30:05 · answer #9 · answered by Marlena 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you ever RIGHT about that! For all the PROOF that you need to back that up, read this. (Note: Best way to do it -- right-click on the link and Open in New Window. Then you can easily just close it when you're done.) ---
http://apifar.blogspot.com/2007/11/its-not-votes-that-count-its-who-counts_25.html
2007-12-09 12:00:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋