Comments on: Got Pulp?

By: Sean Braisted

Sean Braisted — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:17:45 +0000

Nathan, 1) the case for a paper voting receipt can be made without the use of Texas (I’m still hoping Mexico will take them back) and 2) If the Tennessean number is misrepresented, what is the actual number of votes lost?

By: Nathan Moore

Nathan Moore — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:09:38 +0000

All these comments, and no one cares that The Tennessean grossly misrepresented the malfunctions of electronic voting machines in Texas to make their case?

By: Lee

Lee — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:01:21 +0000

I’m going to kinda agree with Sean on this one. Not so much because I believe in the whole Diebolt voting conspiracy thing, but because a paper receipt would, if nothing else, nip those conspiracy theories in the bud. And as a backup system, some redundancy would be good.

I think that voting should be like buying a sweater at JC Penney’s with a credit card.

You have to show a photo ID, but you get a paper receipt at the end.

By: George Rand

George Rand — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:30:04 +0000

Note that conspicuous by its absence is any concern for verifying the status of those voting, whether it be by paper ballot, electronically, or electronically with a paper receipt. If the vote itself is illegal, no amount of security can make it legal. The Democrats have consistently demagogued any attempt to verify the legality of the vote itself. Take only Florida and convicted felons, Georgia trying to verify the identities of voters, Memphis with illega addresses and felons, to name only the most recent egregious examples. Or try reading “The secrets of the Hopewell Box” for an example of the integrity of paper ballots.

By: Sean Braisted

Sean Braisted — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:38:49 +0000

Also, perhaps I take this issue to heart more because my Hometown of Gahanna, OH was home to one of these “voting irregularities” that seemed to benefit Bush. And Franklin County (of which Gahanna and Columbus are in) had issues with electronic voting machine errors that favored Bush.

By: Sean Braisted

Sean Braisted — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:34:45 +0000

Thats why I support as many checks and balances in the voting system to ensure voter security. I’m not saying that Democrats haven’t been guilty of voter fraud, just that it seems Republicans are usually resistent to further checks in the system. Here is the GAO report on the election of 2004, and apparently it shows that there were irregularities and electronic results can be hacked.

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1529

By: Nathan Moore

Nathan Moore — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:16:19 +0000

First, the Kerry conspiracies in Ohio have not been proven. If you have an affidavit and a witness, I’d love to see it.

Besides, Republicans are plenty-fine with election security. That’s the point of my post - paper receipts are a feel good solution with little merit.

Second, the “paper trail” which has become the golden goose of election integrity, can easily be forged. You could essentially call into question an election by generating fake time-stamped receipts, saying votes weren’t counted. It’s not a good system. The conspiracy nuts will believe the paper, the media runs with it without actually thinking about it, and we have more debacles.

And don’t believe that won’t happen. Remember, if you will, the number of pre-voted machines in Philadelphia the morning of the 2004 election. They were all reset (allegedly), but to say that one party wants to manipulate elections more than another is irresponsible. And Democrats in Nashville ought to check some history before throwing a single electoral stone.

By: Sean Braisted

Sean Braisted — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:05:18 +0000

Yeah, but if you back up already flawed data, than the backed up data is wortheless. There were many instances in 2004 of voters and election commissions who noticed that when a person pressed the name of the person they wanted to vote for, another candidate was chosen (most of the time it was Kerry voters having Bush chosen, so maybe that is why there isn’t a push by Republicans to have more voter security). By printing a voter receipt a voter can verify that what is on the piece of paper is what they chose. And if at the end of the night the electronic results don’t conform with the paper results, a deeper investigation could be launched. And yes, if a voter can look at the paper receipt, see the candidates chosen are the ones they selected, than the paper receipt (remember I’m not talking about paper ballots) are more reliable than a digital copy.

By: Nathan Moore

Nathan Moore — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:54:14 +0000

But that’s my point - the machine is already backed up electronically, multiple times. Electronic voting itself leaves little room for user error.

The presumption is that the paper will always be “more” right. I don’t think that’s an accurate presumption.

By: Sean Braisted

Sean Braisted — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:45:46 +0000

It would be a backup system in case something goes wrong with the electronic machine. When you have 90 year olds who can’t operate a VCR handling the transfer of electronic information, something eventually is bound to get screwed up. Having a paper backup is just a check & balance in the system.

By: Nathan Moore

Nathan Moore — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:27:12 +0000

The perception may indeed be better, I can agree with that. I just don’t think such a system adds a lick of security / integrity to the process.

By: Sean Braisted

Sean Braisted — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:23:30 +0000

I don’t see why this is an either/or issue. Have touch screen voting machine that prints a paper receipt, that way a voter can verify their vote was correctly recorded, and then have them place the receipt in a box like you would do normal paper ballots. Then, the election commission could randomly sample precincts to make sure that the electronic results match the paper receipts. It wouldn’t cost that much more, a thermal printer costs roughly 50 dollars, and would give voters more faith in the electoral process.