Why Did Bobby Kennedy Say: "Indeed, There Is A Remarkably Simple

[orleans]

Indeed, there is a remarkably simple solution: equip every touch-screen machine to provide paper receipts that can be verified by voters and recounted in the event of malfunction or tampering. "The paper is the insurance against the cheating machine," says Rubin, the computer expert. "

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11717105/robert_f_kennedy_jr__will_the_next_election_be_hacked/print

why did he say that?

from what i understand no one does recounts if the election is not too close (like within 1/2 of 1%) or too great a difference (like 95% or 110%)

no one is gonna look at those rolls of paper--THESE MACHINES SIMPLY NEED TO GO. PERIOD.

by the way--have we all read his latest article in rolling stone? if not, i would highly suggest you do.

[benddem]

but

if you have a verified paper trail and there is demand for a recount then it can be done. Give what we are finding out from these machines everyone should have the chance to at least determine at the time of the vote their vote is what was cast.

[orleans]

2. i agree the machines need a paper trail if they are going to be used but

this is hardly a solution. the solution is NO MORE MACHINES.

[SharonAnn]

5. There must be mandatory audits, "robust" audits of every election.

That will point out areas of "question".

Without audits, they election can be rigged to be within whatever percent it needs to be in order to avoid a recount.

Voter Verified
Paper Ballot
Robust Audit procedures

[papau]

1. Part of the plan is mandatory random audits of 5% or more of the vote

Without the audits being both random amd mandatory we would always get the Ohio theft and fake "checking" and then as with Ohio we'd have the media saying where is your proof as they reject exit polls and math as proofs.

[gully]

3. Not true, it's not a matter of looking at rolls, it's a matter of

comparing a total via paper vs. via the final so called numbers. ATM machines are "balanced" every day our votes should be also.

Also, there are optiscan machines that provide a paper ballot that can be recounted if need be. I think you have a point, but even if we remove machines completely, we'll still have some issues.

[orleans]

6. "even if we remove machines completely, we'll still have some issues"

sure we will. but not like the issues we're having now. did you see the princeton study and video demonstrating how to hack the machines, and how a malicious code can wipe away any trace of malicious code and therefore it would be undetectable that the machines had been tampered with?

the tally print out (once the machine is hacked) will match the machine's total false vote count. unless you stand there, and unravel the entire roll and recount it vote by vote no one will see that there has been an error--because the little print out at the end of the night will match the machine totals.

bottom line: the machines MUST GO.

[gully]

7. Did you see where I advocate a paper trail?

Totals can be periodically tallied in a machine, so that one would not have to count an entire roll of paper? I just don't see us going back to all out chads?

But, I DO prefer a slow vote count to machines that can be hacked.

[lonestarnot]

4. What happens if the machines are obviously broken?