I still think the Diebold theory is wishful thinking.....

[Liberal Veteran]

I am logical enough to say that I can't say with 100 percent certainty that there was no tweaking the software, but I have just run into too many dumbasses in my life.

Between a gay person saying they are gonna vote for Bush because he has the same kind of dog as him to the dumbshit who thinks terrorists are really gonna attack the big town of Crowsbeak, N. D. (pop. 4) to the literal millions of idiots who turn in for their daily brainwashing from the likes of Sean Hannity, Michael Weiner, and OxyRush, to the blue-haired old woman who thinks Bush is "such a good Christian", to the self-proclaimed feminist who hates Teresa because she is too outspoken so she votes for Bush.

I have literally MOUNTAINS of evidence that a good portion of Americans are easily manipulated to downright stupid vs. some interestingly plausible yet unsubstantiated theories about software tampering.

Hell, if Germany can get it's ass kicked and then two decades later turn right around and become a fascist state hellbent on conquering the world and purifying the human race, anything is possible.

[ibegurpard]

1. Maybe so

But what's it going to hurt to get rid of auditless voting software? What's the problem with pen and paper? We'd just have to wait longer for the result.

[Liberal Veteran]

2. Nothing at all and support any effort to make voting VERY accountable..

....but I think too many people here have convinced themselves of this "magic bullet" solution and think they are looking for a simple explanation to a VERY complex problem.

[ibegurpard]

3. Oh, I ABSOLUTELY agree that we have problems that go much

deeper than that. And those problems help to create an aura of authenticity about weird discrepancies between expectations and results. But no matter how much we fix, if we aren't reasonably sure that our elections are clean we're dead in the water.

[discopants]

4. you forgot to mention that these idiots...

were afraid they'd have to take The Global Test.

[andym]

5. We need a powerful audit system in any case

I agree with you that gullible people were likely responsible for the outcome. See this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1309775

A powerful audit system would be nice. One really simple one is for the voting machine to print several duplicate read-only CDs as voting proceeded. A duplicate CD could be given to party representatives observing the election.

Simple, and gives a nice way for each party to assure that the ultimate account is honest.

[high density]

6. I agree

But we still need the paper trail for next time. If Diebold was making ATMs that were engineered like these voting machines, no banks would ever buy them. Unfortunately the state governments are so stupid that they don't ask computer experts or use a little bit of common sense before spending millions on these machines.

[Awsi Dooger]

7. Examples of that stupidity in Nevada

The state has paper trails, but the machines were retrofitted with them. A huge supply of slightly different machines that cannot be similarly retrofitted will have to be replaced. I think the cost is $11 or 12 million.

Since it wouldn't have mattered anyway, I'm glad Kerry lost Nevada. A win would have provided ammo for Democrats to scream, "See, we won in the only state with paper trails!"

[Trahurn]

8. I know This Much

I have paid particular attention to this E-voting thing ever since it became certain it would figure highly in this election. There are a couple things that to me stick out like a sore thumb. One is the fact the republicans either fought or were totally uninterested in having some means of verifying the final, official tally from E-voting machines. Secondly everything thing of technically sound reading I have done over the past year finds a total agreement among computer type people that E-Voting is questionable to dangerous. Actually there are three things. Does anyone remember the executives of DIEBOLD assuring the republicans that they would deliver Bush a victory in November 2004. Which has certainly come to pass.
To make such a promise is to say the least very inappropriate and it is to say the most something that should raise every possible alarm. But it hasn't. I seem to remember reading something recently where the DIEBOLD executives were busy celebrating their Bush victory they promised to deliver. Can the outcome of E-voting be tampered with or not? We all know it is a forgone conclusion that Bush certainly would have the will to manipulate the outcome if it both benefited them and it was something they had a high enough certainty of getting away with. As for me this E-Voting smells like so much unrefrigerated fish.

[wtf]

9. I understand

and even appreciate healthy skepticism. But these people lied about war, they lie about science for political gain, what in the world would stop them from stealing votes?

[grace0418]

10. I agree with your assessment of the morans of

America, but why does that make the Diebold theory wishful thinking? BushCo has proven time and time again that they will stoop to any level, pull any dirty trick, use any evil plot to get what they want. And they just laugh it off and expect us to forget and rally around them. When a head honcho at Diebold says just a year ago that he fully intends to deliver Ohio to BushCo and then it happens...that sounds like a lot more than a crackpot conspiracy theory.