NAVIGATION MAIN MENU

COMPENDIUM LIBRARY/TWITTER MONITOR
VIDEO GALLERY
Economic News
Newsbrief Archives
Democrat Leadership Twitter and Realtime Feeds
Cabinet twitter and realtime feeds
North America weblog
International weblog
Democrats twitter directory
Latest Government Jobs and Public Tenders
Jobs Matrix
Global Travel Information
Pop Entertainment Forum
Start Portal


Please make a donation to support upkeep of the daily news journal, back archives, twitter feeds and the compendium library.










Nightmare for Democracy: High Confidence Yet Total« Thread S

Daily newsbrief journal for May 2007, also see http://www.usdemocrats.com/brief for a global 100-page perpetual brief and follow twitter @usdemocrats


Nightmare for Democracy: High Confidence Yet Total« Thread S

Postby admin » Sat Jan 28, 2012 12:31 pm

Nightmare for Democracy: High Confidence Yet Total« Thread Started on May 22, 2007, 7:24pm » --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ultimate Nightmare for Democracy: High Confidence Yet Total Fraudby Paul Lehto http://www.opednews.com read at source> http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne ... are_f.htmI practiced consumer fraud law for 10 years before moving on to election law and election fraud. I will show you that ALL AUDIT PROPOSALS where the paper is generated by a computer touch screen (whether DRE or Automark ballot printing devices) simply can not work in any way, ASSUMING that what we want is an election that matches true voter intent, which is what we all want.The most critical issue with all audit proposals where computers print the ballot, is ignored by both the Holt supporters like Lisa Pease as well as Holt detractors, such as Brad Friedman. My biggest concern is not that the machines will print out a paper record (ballot or trail) that is different than the electronic record, but rather one that is the SAME as the electronic record, where BOTH the paper and electronic are erroneous or fraudulent . The reason the above scenario is so very important is that when the paper and the electronic record match up, that means that audits will pass with FLYING COLORS. All of them. The paper matches the electronic. We all congratulate ourselves on a proper election when paper matches electronic, right? Of course. The problem is with the assumptions that go into this. The problem assumption is this: We assume that "voter-verified" paper means that voters catch mistakes. BUT THIS ASSUMPTION JUST MENTIONED IS NOT TRUE: IN FACT, VOTERS DO NOT CATCH MISTAKES OR FRAUDS IN THE PAPER WHEN IT IS SECONDARY TO VOTING ON A SCREEN . It's like at the grocery store, people sort of watch the cashier and see if it makes general sense, but the secondary paper receipt almost nobody checks closely.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 82092
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:00 am

Return to May 2007

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron