A few caveats:
1.I am aware that I have offended some Dopers. I do apologize. I ask that you respond to this issue and not just attack me based on some percieved insult.
I think that was just one caveat…
Hang on, I’ll count again. One. Yep.
Not to be a pedant or anything, but aren’t caveats usually accompanied by, you know, a statement?
What I was trying to say before the gremlins took over is I hope those of you who feel that I have insulted you or those of you that feel that I am an idiot, will respond to the following issues, and not to me personally. (thats not meant to imply that you are not welcome to heap insults on me on general principle)
I will not be providing voluminous cites, I assume anyone reading this can verify the statements or disprove them on their own. (if not E-mail me at askeptic2001@yahoo.com and I will provide the applicable cites)
My problem is this, many people in the US feel that the last election was rigged. I suggest that with the introduction of Computerized Touch Screen Voting, the Reps will not have to rely on Kathleen Harris illegal disenfranchisement of african american voters, or the Supreme Court disregarding Florida State law requiring a physical recount of all votes, with the new touch screen computer voting machines, they will be able to program as narrow a victory as they like for the Commander in Thief. I am just waiting to hear that KB&R has been awarded the contract to inspect the new voting machines for accuracy.
Just because some geriatrics and nitwits in Florida could not read a ballot, does that mean we must rush headlong into computer balloting? Next we will have internet voting from home. Great, then Bill Gates will decide who is going to be pres.
one link machine voting
I won’t venture an opinion on your main question, because there is far too much misinformation out there on the 2000 election for me to even begin to pick a side- and I’m a Floridian.
If we do go to online voting, though, it won’t be Bill Gates who decides elections. As every Microsoft customer knows, it will be a 13-year-old kid who celebrates handing the presidency to Snoop Dawg by shouting “Woot!” and opening a bag of Fruit Gushers.
A hacker, chief.
I’ve never understood the American obsession with voting machines. Why complicate things? Why not just do it like other democracies - note in envelope, envelope in box? Sure, it might take longer to count, but we’re willing to wait those extra 6 hours fo a more reliable result.
No dice. Provide your own cites. None of this “Here’s my blanket argument, now if you agree with it then you can find cites, and if not then you can find cites to disprove it”.
Regarding computerized/non-personal voting, there was something in MPSIMS within the past few days that addressed this. Here’s a link to the short explanatory post:
In particular, read Nevarmore’s post.
This is not meant to be a political issue, despite my unfortunate phrasing, but rather a statement of doubt as to the reliability of computer voting machines. We all know that computers can be programmed, should we really trust that programming? Is it too much work to actually count ballots? I know that people can make mistakes or even cheat (tongue bleeding from witholding comment about last election), but at least if the Supreme Court would allow it we could actually recount the ballots. Can we really rely on a computer to tell us who won?
Alessan:Untill the last election there was no fascination with voting machines, I suspect it because the election was so close they wanted to find a way to assure another four years for Bush. To my great sorrow I suspect that it will be followed by eight years of Jeb Bush, then one of the Bush daughters. 
RNATB: I am begining to think your username is a misnomer (so you do not misunderstand I am implying that in fact you are pretty bright)
impunha: I will check the threads to which you reffered me. I am curious, you said “No Dice” exactly what is it that I said that you want me to provide a cite?
Nice link, too bad it was closed. :rolleyes:
If this is another “Diebold has already promised the election to Bush” conspiracy theory, please spare us. I’m 100% against Bush, but this stuff I think is silly. Let’s take an example: I live in Ohio, a battleground state. All the exit polls say Kerry won, but the results show Bush. Repeat this in several other states. OK, Diebold gave the election to Bush. However, I can’t think of a state Attorney General who isn’t interested in some publicity. The lawsuits would start flying the next day. I’d say it is similar to the Republican Attorney Generals jumping on the tobacco lawsuit bandwagon a few years ago.
This stuff sounds a like Y2K doomsday talk: Much ado about nothing.
You have made at least one semi reasonable statement:
So the problem is the impression held by “many people” including, I would hazard a guess, your good self.
After identifying the problem, you then followed up with a number of your completely unsubstantiated opinions:
My conclusion is, you’re not worth debating.
An interesting article on the possibilities of vote-rigging in the US elections.
I offer no opinion on the veracity or possibility of such happenings.
I tried to clarify that despite my political rhetoric that slipped in, my primary question is can we really rely on computers to announce the election results? To be clear, I would be just as suspiscious of computer results in favor of my preffered candidate as I will be when Bush is “elected”. The issue I am attempting to address is reliability of computer voting machines and their susceptabilty to manipulation. Sorry you think it is much ado about nothing, thats your right.
In general, if you’ve a point to make in GD, it never hurts to have a cite. In particular in this instance, you might want to make some effort to substantiate those statements singled out by Alan Owes Bess as well as any others you feel might be in need of supporting evidence:)
Funny, I have the same opinion of you. Here is your link like it or lump it, I know you will not disprove anything you will just blather about biased media. Thats OK I am used to that.
impuhna: do you just dislike me personally, or do you just like to fight?
[whine]But I want to know nowww![/whine]
Good Lord, you think the statement “In general, if you’ve a point to make in GD, it never hurts to have a cite” = fighting with you?
I don’t usually agree with AOB, but IMO, you, sir, are entirely too defensive and hostile to make it worth getting into a discussion with you.
Yes, there is the possibility that touch screen voting can be tampered with. There are technical solutions, most simply to have the machine print out a receipt that the voter checks over before leaving the precinct. Those receipts become the official record and paper trail.
There isn’t any reason why only the Republicans would tamper with the elections. Unless the system is made tamper proof, we could have the election decided by who has the better hackers. I’m not convinced that all the back doors in the software are locked and secure, so who knows how this will work out. Our exit polling is accurate enough that if the final results differ significantly from the exit polling, then we’ll have a good idea if the results were rigged.