I have no idea why you are so opposed to advancement in technology.
While it's probably true that nothing is foolproof, did you ever stop
to think that these machines have brought the security of voting to
the highest level? If you REALLY want to rig an election why not go
back to paper ballots. It's much easier. The checks and balances that
are implemented in the new TSx machines are far more than a simple
optical scan election. It's the conspiracy theorist of the world that
continuously hold us back from achieving great things. There are
medical procedures and new drugs that can do wonders for the human
body but people like you try to hold back advancement. I for one think
that we should get all the candidates on a stage and hold a hand over
each candidates head and whoever gets to most applause wins. Only I'm
afraid that you would say that the decibel registration device that
measures applause volume was tampered with and inaccurate.
Use this link to go directly to full article:
Posted by Bev Harris on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 08:07 am:
Dear Concerned Voter:
access. What NO ONE wants to talk about with computerized voting is
what happens to security if you have inside access.
So, let's compare apples to apples, shall we? Inside access to hand
counted paper ballot systems, if the systems lack certain simple
checks and balances, allows tampering through approximately half a
dozen attack points on a small-scale basis. Inside access to
electronic voting systems, if ALL procedures aren't followed to the
letter, and I guarantee you they are NOT followed at all consistently,
allows wholesale access to as many as a million votes at a time by a
By definition, a crime by a single person is not a conspiracy. But now
let's talk about one of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories of
all: The absurd idea that there is some kind of wholesale voteR fraud
whereby individual voters are paid or persuaded to vote when they are
not authorized voters, the concept around which major,
disenfranchising "reforms" are being pushed, like repressive voter ID
Let's just think about that for a moment. In a presidential election,
there are about 100 million voters. To affect just ONE percent of the
votes -- and that's usually not even enough -- you'd need to persuade
ONE MILLION people to vote illegally.
Now THAT's a conspiracy. It's ridiculous. Yet you have vendors out
there acting as if its a pressing issue that must be addressed right
now. I'll just point out that the EAC commissioned a study, and the
results showed that this absurd conspiracy isn't even a problem, yet
it didn't stop states from trying to change the law.