Hey rjung...

















There were more. We get it. You don’t like Diebold. Please pick a new “Bush is a poopy pants” topic. Thanks.

Wow, how’s that for a powerful OP?

Had some spare time on your hands Bruce? :stuck_out_tongue:

Yikes! I hope no one ever looks up my usage of the phrase “peaceful honest”. :smiley:



rjung’s pitting is long overdue. I’ve been meaning to do it myself but it’s an election year and I’m a Republican. I’m far too busy trying to keep elderly Black people from the polls.


Well done, Bruce.


Smartly done!

Ah-ha! Caught you, Bruce_Daddy! You listed this one:



You big exaggerator, you.

Your link is teh busted.



Sorry 'bout that. Here’s two more to make up for it.



Considering it is a perfectly rational concern to wish to have free and fair elections and there is certainly some controversy concerning the veracity of electronic voting, I fail to see how bringing attention to this issue is considered pit-worthy. (Especially when the majority of the linked comments are one-liners in threads, not threads opened specifically for the purposes of discussion of this issue) I think it should be brought up on many more occasions until such times as the general populace at large actually begin to take serious attention of this issue.

The fact that many of you think this is a non-issue and attempt to belittle the very mentioning of it leads one to believe it needs to be raised again and again until you finally do wake up and take notice. People must be made aware of the importance of fair practices in voting and the damage unfair practices, whether intended or not, can do to the reputation and acceptance of said election results.

So what are they going to do? How exactly will they program the machines to steal votes?

Well, to make the case that all he’s on about it Diebold, I’d think you might work up the percentages. What proportion of his total posts ofer a given time are only about Diebold?

See, rj talks about a lot of things as I understand it, and the Diebold debacle is only one–but one which he finds important. I find it important too, personally, though I’m not as prolific a poster.

I never said anyone specific was going to ‘steal’ votes. Maybe that is Rjung’s contention, but I’ll leave that for him to answer. I’m saying that, as the machines stand, they most certainly have the capability of being either misused or malfunctioning in their counting of votes. With no verifiable and checkable paper trail, they can spout out any result and noone would be the wiser. The machines could end up failing to register all republican votes made after 6pm (or some other fundamental mistake) that would royally fuck up the legitimacy of the result.

It is certainly an important issue and worthy of a lot more investigation and press coverage than it seems to be getting. I’m not here to suggest a particular party will hi-jack them to suit their needs, but it needs to be watched very carefully, and the processes need to be recheckable and recountable by human means, if necessary (in the event of a close race). At present they are not.

I don’t need to understand exactly how a hacker programs a virus to know that my computer is at risk if I don’t enact safeguards.

But let’s turn the question around. How exactly will they be able to guarantee that mistakes/fraud/inaccuracies won’t occur? Can someone explain why, exactly, a paper trail is such an (apparently) abhorrent idea?

I will add that I’m not concerned so much about intentional tampering, as I am about the documented errors and inaccuracies that have happened in previous elections using these machines (many of which were caught during audits and recounts by examining the paper trail).

Every method has it’s pitfalls, what about those stupid hanging chads? I’m not defending the electronic machines either, so don’t go after me on that.

What concerns me more is that any method which doesn’t produce the desired results will be called fraudulent. (thanks election 2000)