You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #223: I understand what he was trying to say. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
Dynasty_At_Passes Donating Member (254 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-21-05 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #222
223. I understand what he was trying to say.
Edited on Sun Aug-21-05 03:58 AM by Dynasty_At_Passes
But it just came off as completely hack-jobbed in the context he was saying it.

If he had said that had overvotes not happened for Al Gore and a secure based precinct counter had been used than Al Gore would have won, I would have understood.

But he specifically stated optical scan machines being used in three of those counties would have eliminated Gore's problem, and given him a victory.

And he did so without realizing that those optical scan machines had their memory card switched, and ended up losing votes of at least 16,000 that threw the election. Did those problems ever get rectified? No, not in the recount. That's why the court decision came down the way it did. No one wanted to count the real votes. But that is not the issue here.

The issue is a serious oversight relating to security, and I guess I've addressed that. I just wish that if someone is going to do a study on one vague area of e-voting, they explain specifically what the study is out to address rather than lump it together and call it a comprehensive study.

I want to see scientists take responsibility for that, and if a comprehensive study is going to be done get a team of at least 100 people and staff and then explain all the basis of the study, the logistics, and compare machines by vendor. Its that kind of study which will really be able to tell and indicate what level of fraud and disenfranchisement is happening.

And it takes place with citizens such as in San Diego, who decided they should run another election alongside the "machine" election. This is what uncovered the discrepancies, not a statistical guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC