Check Out This VIDEO! A new efficient way to count votes?

[pauldp]

See what you guys think,
This guy Gary Tomlinson is a credit card fraud specialist with some experience in election fraud detection. He has some interesting solutions for counting different kinds of ballots.

http://www.prolifique.com/itv/GT.wmv

[Laura PourMeADrink]

1. bad link

[pauldp]

2. It's a Windows media file and the link should work fine. n/t

[pauldp]

3. It works on a Mac and PC both I just checked it.

Do you have Windows media player? You might need to download it.

[Sydnie]

4. Link worked fine for me and that was very interesting

It makes sense. Diebold IS very involved with the banking industry and they rarely make a mistake with funds going through their systems.

This guy should develop the system himself and market it to the makers of the machines.

I liked the microfiche idea as well. It would have a long shelf life that way was well.

[pauldp]

5. The amazing thing is that this technology already exists.

I've heard some countries in Europe use Bank document machines to count ballots but I'm not sure which country.

[On Par]

6. Looks Fail Safe. The Only Problem Is...

...getting the Republican Congress to do what is "RIGHT" and in the best interest of democracy.

Where's the media pressure when you need it?

OP

[pauldp]

7. Ugg don't get me started on those whores. n/t

[On Par]

9. Whores Have More Ethics...

...than Republicans!

OP

[pauldp]

11. LOL! n/t

[Sydnie]

12. and better clothes for sure. n/t

[Andy_Stephenson]

8. Ummm

Seems like a well intentioned guy...But I want less technology in vote counting...not more.

[On Par]

13. What You Want Is Accuracy!

To paraphrase Bill Maher, have you ever noticed, they don't miscount money in Las Vegas, but every time they count the vote, it comes out differently. Why is that? Maybe, he said, we should get the people who make the five cent slot machines, make the voting machines, because they don't make mistakes.

The point is, we know how to count money. We should also know how to count votes.

OP

[pauldp]

14. Well if hand counted paper ballots never gets anywhere...

This would be my second choice. I also think his point about no one with a vested interest ever touching the ballots is a good one.

[Quakerfriend]

10. Great post!

It's no surprise that they had this tech all along.

As we all know, they DON'T want the voting process to be secure.

You should send this video to Conyers and Boxer. It would be irrefutable proof that we can easily swith over to this fail safe system, that they could present to Congress.

[On Par]

15. Of Course Diebold Knows How To Secure The Vote....

...they do Home Depot's scanning. Have you ever left Home Depot without a receipt. Diebold knows paper trails. They obviously didn't want to have one for the electorate.

Furthermore, the Federal Gov't should handle a Federal election, not anyone who makes a machine and is able to sell it to a county or state. We need to have one election. Not 50 separate elections.

OP

[pauldp]

16. I agree we need uniformity.

A national standard for national elections. If machines are used at all they had better be 100% reliable and open to the public for scrutiny.

[demodonkey]

17. Sounds all well and good BUT

how do you stop somebody from hacking or buying off the companies who own these big scanning and microfilming and counting machines?

Also -- pin coding Social Security or Driver's License number? Attaching it to your vote? Bye-bye secret ballot.....

[pauldp]

18. I don't think the pin code is to be attached to the vote

I think the vote would remain anonymous.
I think it is just a way of verifying registration and avoiding fraudulent multiple votes. This relates to what he said about his analysis of LA county where people had been registered multiple times - once with a middle initial, once without etc.

With the microfilm backup, I think these machines could be reliable, but I'll email him and see if I can get a response from him on machine security.

[demodonkey]

19. If the pin codes are recorded in order (or by date and time) and

the microfilm made in order, your vote could be tracked.

Even could be a problem with paper poll books we have now if Voter Verified Paper Ballots are printed, but not cut off and stored separately. Obviously they would be on the roll of paper in the order that the voters signed in and voted.

[pauldp]

20. Don't some voters take longer than others to vote?

I'm not exactly sure about how this works in all cases, but I don't think voting would necessarily be completed in the order the voters signed in.

[demodonkey]

21. Yes they take different times but still pass "through the machine" in...

the order they sign in.

[On Par]

22. Don't You Sign Your Name on the Registry When You Vote?

And how can you hack or buy off big scanning companies using microfilm? It's not like they can do anything in advance since you're not voting in alphabetical order.

I understand your concerns, but you need to think it through.

OP

[pauldp]

23. Good Point

I think as long as safeguards are in place to make sure the ballots don't ever make it into the hands of anyone with a vested interest prior to entering the document processor, the microfilm should provide a good measure of security because it could always be checked against the ballots.

[Rocky Top]

24. The voting machines are not the problem!!!

As long as the repugs own these big scanning and microfilming and counting machines and control the software they can control the votes. Any machines even this one can be hacked.
I trust the machines they only do what they are programs to do.
Think about it!!!

[davidgmills]

27. I'm with you

Where there is a will, there is a way, for someone to hack the vote.

We need decentralized tabulation.

I also think we need something that is very transparent for the average voter to have confidence in.

Tht means hand counting out in the open in front of God and everybody.

I don't have one bit of doubt that we have the technology to count votes accurately. It is just that we don't have the ethics.

[garybeck]

29. no doubt, but we need both

we need to improve the technology, get paper ballots, random audits, etc,

AND

we need to get partisan corporate companies out of the business.

we need both.

[On Par]

30. Who Said The Republican's Will Own The New Machines?

Or even be in charge of the counting. With this specific proposal, no one with a vested interest can touch the machines. As an example, the Federal Gov't can have their own machines for microfilm and tabulation. They can be overseen by TV, Radio, and print media at each location.

[demodonkey]

25. It's very possible to hack scans; if the scans are hacked

the microfilm will be also.

[pauldp]

28. But you have the original ballots to cross check yes?

You could always go back and do a hand recount if need be. And
why are you assuming the machines will be owned by Repugs?

[garybeck]

26. good video, thanks n/t