Reply #125: So, no answer, eh?

[BeFree]

Just attack the questioners?

The ESI study of Ohio produced results. That is not the argument. The argument is: The problems have been uncovered: Where are the solutions?

What's odd is that ESI is being given a great deal of lattitude here. A lattitude not offered other organizations. In fact, there seems to be a 'circle the wagon' mentality hereabouts. It seems there is no critque allowed of the election "experts" by the election reformers. It seems intellectual integrity is lacking when results are not followed up with pertinent solutions to the problems revealed in the results.

You wrote:"But some of those of us who have actually bothered to investigate the election integrity issues arising from the 2004 election have come in for some completely unsupported crap from people (who) found our conclusions differed from their own."

I will guess here that you are saying no problems were found? Well, that's unsupported. Problems were found, we all agree. Indeed, ESI found many problems in Ohio. Many here have offered solutions to those problems, yet the 'experts' have offered, as far as I can tell, no solutions to those found problems. Maybe you can enlighten us?

On edit: Indeed, as is quoted in the following, problems are clearly described, and agreed upon.

stevenstevensteven (305 posts) Fri Oct-20-06 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #108
109. paperless voting systems

From eomer: "I believe it is scientific fact that purely electronic paperless voting systems, at least in their current stage of evolution, are not transparent."

Agreed.

I would also argue that DRE based systems with VVPAT are also not transparent in their current stage of evolution.

Again: What is the solution to the agreed upon problems?