Yup, that’s what we’ve got here in backwards Okieland, too. It works tremendously well - the ballots are easy to read and comprehend (even when I first started voting, right after this system was implemented), immediate confirmation of your vote being tabulated, automatic check for mismarked ballots.
I truly, truly do not understand why more states don’t use this method.
Yeah well your comment implied we’re just trying to dig up examples of voter fraud that benefit Kerry.
If I misinterpreted, my mistake.
CNN has an AP story about this now, too.
As for this:
How many banking ATMs do we have in this country? If we took that kind of attitude with those electonic counting machines, any bank using them would go bankrupt. As far as electronic voting goes, it is perfectly possible to account for each and every vote perfectly. I am so tired of hearing this “but there’s so many” excuse.
LilShieste
Hmmm. Maybe it’s just that Bush has overwhelming support from the deceased?
You know, now that you mention it… wasn’t the polling place for this precinct built on top of some kind of ancient burial grounds…? 
LilShieste
So much for “every vote counts.” :rolleyes:
“Every vote counts” does not mean you have to count every vote to determine a winner.
If you have mechanically processed ballots, you run them through the machine.
The machine will tell you how many ballots there are, what it’s current vote totals are, and how many ballots it could not read (hanging chads and all that).
If the margin seperating the candidates is larger than the remaining number of ballots/uncounted votes + the margin of error… it’s not necessary to count the remaining votes to declare a winner.
It’s merely a matter of formality to count the remaining votes.
Banks move that many dollar bills around fairly easy with very little loss, I honestly don’t see how counting paper is that hard.
Granted the people filling out the paper have to fill it out properly, but considering it is, it should be VERY easy to count.
I think the problem is the timeline. Oregon has mail in votes and people have two weeks to fill them out. That seems to work fairly well.
Yeah, I just learned this year that OR does mail only. I have 2 questions about it.
When did OR start doing this?
How do they prevent fraud? Like what how would they prevent someone from stealing a ballot from someone’s mailbox and sending it in?
You mean you acually believed that nonsense? 
Actual currency transactions (with tellers having to count out bills) account for a nearly insignificant portion of a bank’s total transactions. And with currency transactions, human error does still creep in. I’m not convinced one way or another whether or not polling is less accurate than currency transactions.
Still in all, if you think about it, banks and polling sites have different goals. For a bank, extra resources spent on accuracy is pretty much worth it (to a point), as they are in the business of making money – and handling money accurately helps their bottom line. Polling sites have no such impetus – the goal is to determine a winner. Look at 1010011010’s post again and boil down his message: perfect polling is virtually never necessary to determine a winner in an election. Due to the actual goal of the election (to determine a winner), there is definitely an allowable margin of error – and I think this margin is considered when election commissioners and state legislatures work to determine the methods a given state will use to count votes.
Blalron – you’re right. The reality is that not every vote is counted.
“It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.” - Stalin (apocryphal)
In all serious, it would not surprise me that to find that tremendous errors exist - some due to good old fashioned incompetence, some due to fraud. Since I have no plans to look into it myself, I have to trust that the loosing party has determined that these errors were not large enough to cost the election.