Reply #4: TIA promotes the use of computerized election.

[Wilms]

That's how far he'll go in his quest to climb out of the dustbin of electoral history.

He states: Much more likely, corrupt election officials voided the 110,000 votes by maliciously double-and triple-punching them—after the polls closed.

Maybe so. That points to the reason lever voting came to be. It ENDED opportunity to mess with a paper ballot. Perhaps TIA thinks only punch cards can be manipulated. (Well, punch cards and some of his fans, anyway.)


He says:

At least with optical scanners, the paper ballots can be counted...

And what good will that do if they're compromised as in FL2000 as he just stated, or uncounted like in OH2004?


TIA rightly points out the computerized aggregation of the paper record poll workers generate by reading lever counters. But he seems to forget that's what all systems do. So why not fight computerized aggregation? Instead, he goes after non-computerized voting by advocating for the use of computers that rarely are audited.


TIA never mentions the fact that Oregon votes are cast on paper (that he says can be manipulated) counted on computers, and then aggregated on unverifiable central tabulators (computers).


TIA's intellectual dishonesty is the main point made by the OP.