Paper Ballots NOW!!! HAND COUNTS NOW!!! Democracy NOW!!! nt

[In Truth We Trust]

[bryant69]

1. One thing I don't understand

Is why people are more trustworthy than machines?

I mean what's to stop the Republican party from getting a lot of their members to sign up to help with the handcounts and just make a lot of "innocent" mistakes?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ladjf]

2. To rig the count on a voting machine requires only one person.

And that person could rig hundreds of machines. To rig a hand count would require the efforts of hundreds of people. That's much more difficult to pull off without discovery. Ohio's Blackwell has the memory cards for all of the vote counting machines in Ohio, the ones that will count his votes in the primary as he runs for Governor.

[bryant69]

6. That's why you have double checks

and back ups - so that it doesn't take just one person. You put in a system of oversight.

I'm not defending the Status quo - I believe we need a paper trail - just not sure we need to throw out machines entirely.

[Tiggeroshii]

18. What needs to happen is just that

...Right now that's not the case and those in cahrge do not want that to be the case.

[ladjf]

31. The machines most definitely could be made secure by putting

strict methods in place relating to the hardware, software and oversight. As they are now configured, it's a terrible joke. Any beginner programmer could hack in using their own memory cards and other means.

[Joe Chi Minh]

3. Because in other countries, the counters are watched, as they

count each ballot paper. In any case, it shouldn't be impossible to find honest people to count, and enact laws to severely punish the person in charge and render the vote null, if it was spoiled beyond remedy. Also, it's worth noting how unhysterical the Italians were to swear in the new President. Better to get it right than botch it.

[LoZoccolo]

5. They're not.

You have two election judges, one from each party. OK, how many are infiltrators? It's easier to sign up as a fake election judge than it is to tamper with a system in which several people audit the workings of a simple voter-verifiable recountable optical-scan ballot machine before and after it's put to use on election day, and hand-count some random precincts to test their effectiveness.

It's also not effective for someone concerned about this issue to make such unreasonable demands that nothing gets done. But then I wonder how far some people would get with reasonable demands when they equate shouting in a partisan message board with activism.

[In Truth We Trust]

7. So you have more faith in sourcecode than thousands of people who

would actually HAND COUNT with witnesses open to the public? WTF?

Btw, I have asked you politely to stop stalking. You have again suggested I do nothing other than " shouting in a message board" to which I have already told you that you know nothing of what I do or don't do. I'M ASKING YOU AGAIN TO PLEASE REFRAIN FROM YOUR STALKING.

[LoZoccolo]

8. If you post almost the exact same thing every single day...

...you can expect a similar response each time. Go ahead and hit alert on my "stalking" and see that the mods agree with me. And if they don't, I'm asking you to please refrain from that accusation.

You have again suggested I do nothing other than " shouting in a message board" to which I have already told you that you know nothing of what I do or don't do.

I didn't say that. But that is all that's happening here.

So you have more faith in sourcecode than thousands of people who
would actually HAND COUNT with witnesses open to the public? WTF?

No, and that's not what I said.

I did say that your system is unlikely to go anywhere, and misappropriates activist resources, yes. That's my opinion of what you post every day, and you can expect it every time you post it. Don't post it if you don't like people disputing it.

[In Truth We Trust]

9. Are you advocating using technology which includes sourcecode?

If so you are misappropriating activists resources.

Btw, you do not want to know my opinion of your posts.

[LoZoccolo]

12. Possibly some simple hard-coded source code, yes.

The punch card machines we use now has some. The issue for me is more the complexity of the source code, it's auditibility, and it's transigence. And whether or not we can practically expect for hand counts to be implemented. By shouting to a bunch of people who agree with you.

The least you could do is tell us what to do about it. You say you may or may not be involved in some real activism. Wouldn't it help the cause for us to join these efforts, or apply them in our respective areas?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

16. "Hand counts ARE!!"

No they're not.

Your characterization of my message as shouting is as repetive as is my posting of it in the first place.

Yeah.

Your claim that my message is to people of like mind and therefore useless is disingenuous and your disagreement is in itself proof of that therefore stfu on that paricular piece of bull blather.

Only a little bit.

As to your suggesting that I should tell you what to do about it let me remind you that you and I have ALREADY had that conversation.

Yeah but you still didn't tell me. I'm not telling you "should" like I expect you to or you've broken some artificial rule. I'm telling you "should" like if you expect anything to get done you'll probably have to. Or "should" as in if you want people to take you seriously. These aren't things I just decided to establish. I think you might find these on your own...a long time from now, maybe.

Do you need to be reminded of how to petition your government or run for the board of elections etc?

No.

However I would hesitate to recomend someone who actively steps on threads advocating paper ballots and HAND COUNTS and then advocates technology which uses source code and proffers that "random audits" mare the solution.

I'm not disadvocating paper ballots, or hand counts if necessary.

If you used a optical scan system with basic hard-coded tabulation software, randomized the order of the candidates in each election, randomized the numbers used to represent candidates in each election on the ballot, got the randomization approved by all parties, audited the tabulation before the election, and audited random precincts with hand counts, you would have a more reliable system than hand counts. And one more likely to be approved, thus not wasting time with unreasonable demands. And that could be adapted for use by blind and other differently-abled people, which is the basis and selling-point for electronic systems.

[In Truth We Trust]

17. Hand counts are tamperproof with witnesses! Sourcecode is vulnerable and

requires much less people involved to perpetuate a fraWd. Certainly the widespread fraWd we've been subjected to since '02 couldn't have occurred using paper and hand counts. It has ocurred though through sourceware!

Anyone advocating sourcecode in any fashion whatsoever is in my opinion either uneducated or complicit in perpetuating the fraWd. Which are you?

[LoZoccolo]

20. Complicit in perpetrating the fraWd.

Hey, it's what you wanted to hear.

Anyone advocating sourcecode in any fashion whatsoever is in my opinion either uneducated or complicit in perpetuating the fraWd. Which are you?

I think that in your opinion, you think that I'm complicit in perpetrating the fraWd. Am I right?

[LoZoccolo]

21. You have to trust the witnesses.

Not tamper-proof.

It's like you didn't even read my idea. Show me what's wrong in my idea rather than superficially comparing it to failed software.

[In Truth We Trust]

22. You are being quite disingenuous by implying that election fraWd on a wide

spread scale as like that of '02 and '04 can be accomplished through witness tampering. That would require literally tens of thousands of PEOPLE to pull off. Sourcecode requires literally one person to write a stolen election. In reality a corrupt secretary of state such as ken blackwell or katherine harris for example can and have in my opinion along with others stolen our electoral process.

In many states it is required that recounts can only be done if the margin of victory is one percent or less therefore fraWd can be conducted without nary a concern about being caught, "Random audits" are decided upon by some one and could be manipulated as well., That it what occurred in Ohio with the supposed recount effort there which we all know was not conducted honestly, thoroughly or even in some cases not at all.

Sourcecode is in itself intrinsicly manipulable. The laws governing it's use and implementation as well as the checks and balance's proposed are insidious because they are subject to partisan oversight.

Private corporations should have no involvement in the voting and electoral process. Private and public sourcecode should have nothing to do with my vote and our electoral process.

Paper ballots hand counted are the most secure and open means to insure the peoples will. Democracy can not, and will not survive under any other mechanizations.

Keep it simple and honest. Use paper and hand counts only!!!

[LoZoccolo]

23. "Sourcecode is in itself intrinsicly manipulable."

Not in a relevant way in the plan I outlined.

"Random audits" are decided upon by some one and could be manipulated as well.

So could hand counts.

Private corporations should have no involvement in the voting and electoral process. Private and public sourcecode should have nothing to do with my vote and our electoral process.

I see a lot of "should" in these two sentences without "because".

Paper ballots hand counted are the most secure and open means to insure the peoples will. Democracy can not, and will not survive under any other mechanizations.

I've already outlined why this isn't so.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[In Truth We Trust]

26. yaafa!

[acmejack]

4. kick

[senseandsensibility]

10. kick

I appreciate this reminder of the real problems with our last two elections. Without reform, we are without hope of achieving our goals.

[In Truth We Trust]

11. Thank you! I truly couldn't agree more. That is why I post this message

every so often.

[autorank]

13. Canada and Great Britain have national elections with paper.

It takes about 4 hours to count the votes.

BINGO...that's it.

We have a nightmare scenario in this country, multiple technologies administered by people of varying competence, everywhere with no quality assurance or fraud checks. Just wonderful. To advocate a continuation of the current system is an affont to a free people.

[In Truth We Trust]

15. Exactamundo... I endorse Autoranks message... thanks for your knowledgeab

le post!

edit to add: ps your tag line say's it all.

[Joe Chi Minh]

30. "...varying competence... but alas almost uniform, partisan

Republican criminality - including it seems by occasional fifth-column, putative Democratic officials.

[Imagevision]

19. Why are NO Dems getting behind this?? this is a snow job!

no wonder the repukes keep saying about the Democratic party; " do you have a plan"??
When Kerry announced that it was his opinion that the OBL video released days leading up to the election that "DID ME IN" (??) it's mind boggling or there may be something to the skull & Bones thing afterall!

[KAT119]

24. K&R!

[In Truth We Trust]

27. Hey Mods, why has this post been removed from the greatest page?

[Skinner]

28. I removed it from the greatest page.

While I may agree with the sentiment, I don't think this really qualifies as one of our greatest threads. Sorry.

[In Truth We Trust]

29. You are the deciderer I guess. Power does has its privelege doesn't it.

Thanks for responding to my question Skinner with an honest answer. I am curious about the words you chose in response to my question. You said "While I may agree with the sentiment....". Does that mean you prefer hand counted paper ballots over any other means? I sure hope so.

Btw, let me take this opportunity to address my repetitive posting of the op. I do it sporadically as you may know with a binge here and there because I feel it is neccessary to create as many "impressions" as possible to reinforce the position which imho is critical to restoring election integrity and thus the peoples will. I am passionate about the subject and refuse to accept anything more or anything less than simple paper ballots HAND counted.

I do apologize to those who find it annoying. I do try to limit it to only a few times in any given week at most. You as the owner and admin can substantiate the fact that I have literally gone months without posting and have never posted it more than a few times in any given week as an op.

Thank you for tolerating me and allowing me another resource to advocate paper ballots and hand counts.

In Truth We Trust