Reply #42: OK, I'm back on

[Febble]

Cite me a single source where OTOH, or I have defended e-voting.

Look, you are clearly convinced by TIA's arguments. So are many people on this forum.

I am not. Many other people who also desperately care about the parlous state of your democracy are not. Now, let's stop the circular firing squad.

I think I can safely say that virtually everyone on this forum believes:

1. That the vote-counting software is insanely insecure and must be made both secure and transparent.

2. That some kind of paper voting, either all paper, hand-counted ballots, or randomly audited optically scanned ballots are essential to ensure the security of future elections and restore the faith of the American people (and the the world) that their president is legitimately elected.

3. That investigation is required into all anomalies from 2004, including the suppression of minority votes and apparent attempts at deliberate vote corruption.

Now, that may not be much common ground, but it is common, I think. The division, it seems to me, is between those of us who think that progress on these fronts is best served by a dispassionate weighing of the evidence, including the rejection of evidence that does not support the case very well (and in some case is contradictory, and thus undermines it) and those who feel that all evidence that points at election fraud, however easily debunked, is grist to the mill, and thus worth publicizing.

I can sort of understand the second view, but most emphatically do not hold it. I do not believe that providing straw men for the other side is good strategy. The list cited (unattributed) in the Original Post is full of unsourced assertions. Many of them are demonstrably false. Pointing out that they are false does NOT amount to "defending e-voting". It amounts to sifting the truth from the flim-flim and refining a case that will stand up to serious scrutiny.

(edited for clarity)