Comments on: The Globalization Of Electronic Election Theft http://fraudbusterbob.com/blog/2007/05/11/the-globalization-of-electronic-election-theft/ Fraudbuster Bob, fighting a never-ending battle for truth, electoral justice, and the American way. Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:18:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: flybylight http://fraudbusterbob.com/blog/2007/05/11/the-globalization-of-electronic-election-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-339 flybylight Sun, 13 May 2007 16:51:24 +0000 http://fraudbusterbob.com/blog/2007/05/11/the-globalization-of-electronic-election-theft/#comment-339 Huge thanks to these gentlemen for digging so deeply into this issue, especially to Bob who has unearthed enough dirt to touch the core of this wart on our universal elections. I don't think, though, that we need to completely throw out electronics from our elections, yet. Computers are very good at faciltating voter interface, at being accessible to those less able, at tallying numbers quickly and efficiently. As long as we have the backup, the security, and the ability to recount clearly and transparently, and an open faith in the quality and integrity of the product, computers in voting are just fine. (I point out that in the United States, one voting system company with a good, utilitarian, secure, recountable, accessible product, with software available for review was available under HAVA: AccuPoll. There was no reason why every county in the United States did not buy it two years ago, and there is no reason why we shouldn't now. I have found no particular dirt on that company, although as a public company they do tend to let "just anyone" invest!) At any rate, while some folks are advocating only optical scanners (the overwhelming majority are made by the same vendors whose products are causing so much consternation, and which tabulate with the same software as the touch-screen machines use), and while some folks are advocating only 100% hand-counted ballots, I think voters are not yet ready to back off from the computers. We just have to implement the systems appropriately, taking our time to get it right. In other words, where we find corruption we should be certain to throw out the perpetrators without also tossing the currency. Their wrench may be the dripping murder weapon, but some other wrench will do the job nicely. Huge thanks to these gentlemen for digging so deeply into this issue, especially to Bob who has unearthed enough dirt to touch the core of this wart on our universal elections.

I don’t think, though, that we need to completely throw out electronics from our elections, yet. Computers are very good at faciltating voter interface, at being accessible to those less able, at tallying numbers quickly and efficiently.

As long as we have the backup, the security, and the ability to recount clearly and transparently, and an open faith in the quality and integrity of the product, computers in voting are just fine.

(I point out that in the United States, one voting system company with a good, utilitarian, secure, recountable, accessible product, with software available for review was available under HAVA: AccuPoll. There was no reason why every county in the United States did not buy it two years ago, and there is no reason why we shouldn’t now. I have found no particular dirt on that company, although as a public company they do tend to let “just anyone” invest!)

At any rate, while some folks are advocating only optical scanners (the overwhelming majority are made by the same vendors whose products are causing so much consternation, and which tabulate with the same software as the touch-screen machines use), and while some folks are advocating only 100% hand-counted ballots, I think voters are not yet ready to back off from the computers. We just have to implement the systems appropriately, taking our time to get it right.

In other words, where we find corruption we should be certain to throw out the perpetrators without also tossing the currency. Their wrench may be the dripping murder weapon, but some other wrench will do the job nicely.

]]>