Skip to main content

View Diary: RECOUNT OHIO:Cobb & Badnarik Fundraising Drive (338 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  that makes sense (none)
    but, again, what's wrong with verifying the vote now?  I agree that the work should be done before the election, but it wasn't (not through lack of trying) and shouldn't be ignored now.

    300 million people voted in India earlier this year on computers with a paper trail and no reported problems.  If India can do it, why can't we?

    In terms of real election reform, I think we should have random audits as part of the system.  There was a wonderful post a few days ago by somebody with a concrete plan for this. Major corporations self audit every year, why can't we?

    But any push for reform will be toothless if we don't have some idea of how the machines worked this time.  That's all.  I'm feeling a bit like a broken record, but I hope I've made my point (even if you choose to disagree)

    •  Consider (1.25)
      I agree with what you are saying, but consider Enron and all the other companies that just ripped off the public (both dems and repubs are equally responsible for all that IMO).  All those audits, all those stock brokers, analysts and cable tv money shows missed it all.

      My problem with what is being said here is a recount proves nothing.  If we are assuming massive fraud took place you'd have to assume it was sophisticated enough to cover it's tracks in a recount.  If fraud did take place whoever did it, whatever side would have prepared for a recount.  The reason we don't have paper receipts is it's widely believed americans do not want anything that could potentially track their vote.  That's one of the few areas I'd be sensitive to but not against.

      Just because you punch an LCD screen and then get a paper receipt doesn't mean as soon as you leave the building your vote is eliminated.  As soon as we go to paper receipts there will be someone out there making fake ones.

      If they can knock off a monetary instrument like our now very sophisticated dollar bills, they can easily knock off a paper receipt.  

      Really the only way we can seriously mitigate fraud without giving up our freedom is a system that prevents more than one vote per person.   Some countries have people dip their hands in ink on election day so there is no way they can vote twice, others color fingernails.  Primitive but effective. I'd much rather see us go to a federalized ATM type card with a passcode that prevents anyone without a card from voting and anyone with a card can only vote once.  If they can't use their card on election day we have a provisional vote system clearly in place.

      That's all I'm trying to stress folks, if you think a recount is going to overturn fraud it won't happen.   Even if one side finds 40k illegal voters, or let's say 148,001 (enough for a kerry win in OH) we have no way of knowing who those 148,001 voted for.

      I think it's safe to assume there is fraud, the question is how much are you willing to give up to prevent it (and more imporantly at what point will the ACLU stand its ground)

      •  My 2 cents (none)
        The main argument against recepts ( and it's a good one )is a receipt that shows who you voted for would facilitate vote buying.

        I'm against computers being used at all. The #1 programmers rule is GIGI (gargabge in garbage out) no matter how secure any system may seem it will be like a diary lock for these factions.

        The way the CIA and Pentagon are being staffed these days, they are no loger to be trusted as a seperate estate in my book.
        India's system in my book is the best to go on because #1 it works and #2 it's inexpensive.

        J.C. on line one, D.o.d on two-No defense for you, you can't be saved.

        by Brian Nowhere on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 07:48:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •   my issue with this sort of discussion (none)
          vote buying is that it's based on fear, not reality. It's like when the Republicans came out to say there is a lot of chance for voter fraud (fake voters) in response to progressives attempts to prevent them from suppressing the vote before the election. Since the 1960s and the Democratic machines, there has been very little voter fraud actually documented or shown. The thing you are talking about is one of those boogey men that a) would require a lot of capital to be effective on a massive scale b) will have the effect of shutting down common sensical approaches to these issues c) unlike say changing the tabulations on voting machines, would be something that is more easily provable b/c the numbers involved in the "conspiracy" would be huge (notice the claims of voter count manipulation do not require very much manpower compared to your fear (this is called cost-benefit analysis- does the cost out weigh the benefit- the likelihood of your fear giving the economies of labor needed to pull it off says you are wrong, and that we need to focus on common sense outcomes)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site