To Diebold: Can you 100% guarantee ZERO machine malfunctions?

[TruthIsAll]

Anyone listening? I dare anyone, anywhere to guarantee this.

EVERY GOD DAMN MACHINE EVER MANUFACTURED HAS MALFUNCTIONED.

Televisions. Cars. Planes. Space-craft. Ships. Zeppelins. Coffee makers.

Computers, too. Even if you, Diebold, could GUARANTEE no fraud would take place, can you GUARANTEE THAT YOUR TOUCH-SCREEN OR ANY OTHER ATM SYSTEM WOULD NEVER MALFUNCTION.

GIVE ME MY RECEIPT, DAMMIT!

IT CAN'T HURT ME...

BUT I CAN SEE WHERE A PAPER TRAIL COULD HURT YOUR CANDIDATE BUSH, THOUGH.
JUST LIKE HE WOULD HAVE BEEN HURT BY SCOTUS NOT STOPPING THE RECOUNT.
OR KATHERINE HARRIS AND YOUR BRO JEB NOT DISENFRANCHISING 90,000 LEGAL VOTERS.

BTW, ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO GUARANTEE OHIO FOR BUSH? HOW SO?

[sspiderjohn]

1. Good post --

there will be only enough "malfunctions" to allow repubs to win -- dems need a landslide now.

[Jeebo]

5. That would be a HUGE "red flag"...

sspiderjohn says:

"there will be only enough 'malfunctions' to allow repubs to win -- dems need a landslide now."

My response:

I agree with you, and I would like to add that if Republicans win EVERY SINGLE TIME the vote is close, and ESPECIALLY if it's always in locations where paperless electronic touch-screen voting machines are widely used, WE WILL KNOW THAT THERE IS WILLFUL, DELIBERATE ELECTION FRAUD GOING ON.

And if that happens, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? If The Usurper "wins" a second term in next year's election under extremely suspicious circumstances like these, ARE WE GOING TO LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT AGAIN?

I am not advocating violent or unlawful methods of dealing with another theft of the presidency. In 2000 we did not come anywhere close to exhausting all the lawful and peaceful ways of dealing with THAT theft. But are we going to be willing to resort to all of those legal and peaceful ways after they steal NEXT year's election? Do they even ALLOW us to resort to those legal and peaceful ways now? They keep us from getting our message out to the populace by effectively denying us access to the mainstream media, which they OWN. They keep us from lawfully petitioning our government for a redress of grievances by herding protesters into "free speech zones" a mile away from His Fraudulency's public appearances. Now they're saying they have a "proprietary" interest in keeping us from having a look at the software code THAT WILL BE COUNTING OUR VOTES, as if OUR votes are something that they think THEY own. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF SUCH ARROGANCE IN YOUR LIFE?!?

I could go on and on venting my spleen, but I have to go to work now.

Ron

[Yupster]

11. Gore won 3 of the 4

super close states this last election.

New Mexico, Iowa and Minnesota all went to Gore by very little. Not sure about Minnesota -- may have been Oregon or Wisconsin -- have to look it up, but there were some razor thin margins Gore won too.

[Nobody]

2. Even Bill Gates got a fatal exception error

and it was while he was demo-ing Windows 98. We techies laughed our asses off when we heard about it.

If there is to be computer touch screen voting, there must be at least TWO at a minimum dry runs. There must be techs in every location. There must be two techs, one conservative and one liberal, in each polling place. Even with paper ballots, two must initial it and they can't both be representing the same party.

And there ABSOLUTELY MUST be a paper trail.

One company doesn't get to design and build the system alone. Must include as many as possible to avoid conflict of interest issues.

But then, I'm dreaming.

[Jeebo]

3. A correction...

Where you said...

"OR BEV HARRIS AND YOUR BRO JEB NOT DISENFRANCHISING 90,000 LEGAL VOTERS."

I'm sure you meant to say...

"OR KATHARINE HARRIS AND YOUR BRO JEB NOT DISENFRANCHISING 90,000 LEGAL VOTERS."

Ron

[BevHarris]

6. Hah! Not the first time people confuse me with Katherine Harris

Yup, he meant Katherine, not me.

[TruthIsAll]

7. Bev.. I fixed it..My bad...

I really did it on purpose to see if you read my post..

[rock]

4. Of course any means we use (to count votes)

will have flaws and will make mistakes. Zero tolerance is a concept of the gullible. Therefore (to iterate your point), whatever method we use must have a means to verify it's results.

[Eloriel]

8. Tho we might aim for the percentage of error Jimmy Carter

demands before the Carter Center will oversee an election. So far, the U.S. doesn't come close, or at least that was his response about FL 2000.

Eloriel

[Festivito]

9. What about a faulty record, are those votes then dropped.

What guarantee? We've lost close to 15-trillion dollars because of Bush, can they pay?

Would an encryption error flag all the votes as possibly errant?
If not, how good is the check?
If so, how many votes are lost?
What percentage is that of the machine's repository?
How many times can that occur per 100,000 machines?
Is a PCMCIA card accessible that one or more could be replaced?

What is the percent error rate then?

If any vote is lost, then all the votes are discarded per our Stupreme Court.

[TruthIsAll]

10. If votes are lost, we will never know it..what you don't know CAN hurt you

...