One thing that is very strange is how much the exit polls differed from the
final results, especially in Ohio. Remember that Ohio uses Diebold voting
machines in many areas. These machines have no paper trail. Early in the
campaign, Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell, a GOP fundraiser, promised to deliver
Ohio to Bush. He later regretted having said that.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

One thing that is very strange is how much the exit polls differed from the
final results, especially in Ohio. Remember that Ohio uses Diebold voting
machines in many areas. These machines have no paper trail. Early in the
campaign, Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell, a GOP fundraiser, promised to deliver
Ohio to Bush. He later regretted having said that.


Really? No paper trail? Hasn't that been used as an argument against electronic voting machines?
How long have these Diebold machines been in use?

Cheers
Marty

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:36:51 -0500, Martin Baxter wrote:


Really? No paper trail? Hasn't that been used as an argument against
electronic voting machines? How long have these Diebold machines been in
use?

Only since the 2000 election. Diebold's main business is ATM machines.

http://news.bostonherald.com/electio...rticleid=52322

In article , Martin Baxter wrote:
Jonathan Ganz wrote:

One thing that is very strange is how much the exit polls differed from the
final results, especially in Ohio. Remember that Ohio uses Diebold voting
machines in many areas. These machines have no paper trail. Early in the
campaign, Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell, a GOP fundraiser, promised to deliver
Ohio to Bush. He later regretted having said that.


Really? No paper trail? Hasn't that been used as an argument against electronic voting machines?
How long have these Diebold machines been in use?


Some do, some don't. Depends on the state. How long? Long enough,
apparently.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
thunder wrote:
On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:36:51 -0500, Martin Baxter wrote:


Really? No paper trail? Hasn't that been used as an argument against
electronic voting machines? How long have these Diebold machines been in
use?

Only since the 2000 election. Diebold's main business is ATM machines.

http://news.bostonherald.com/electio...rticleid=52322

Yeah, they have a paper trail on ATMs.


--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

On 3 Nov 2004 13:50:00 -0800, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote:

In article , Martin Baxter wrote:
Jonathan Ganz wrote:

One thing that is very strange is how much the exit polls differed from the
final results, especially in Ohio. Remember that Ohio uses Diebold voting
machines in many areas. These machines have no paper trail. Early in the
campaign, Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell, a GOP fundraiser, promised to deliver
Ohio to Bush. He later regretted having said that.


Really? No paper trail? Hasn't that been used as an argument against electronic voting machines?
How long have these Diebold machines been in use?


Some do, some don't. Depends on the state. How long? Long enough,
apparently.

I voted on one of the Diebold electronic machines this year. Very
unsettling. First the election worker "activated" a reusable credit
card with a number of keystrokes. A paranoid individual might assume
that the voting machine might well electronically capture my voting
information, along with the identiry of the voter, etc. I was then
instructed to proceed to a machine, insert the card and proceed with
my voting. The machine indicated an "invalid card". I had to return
to the election official who seemed baffled, reactivated the card and
sent me back. This time the machine responded to the card and I was
able to vote, at least it appeared that I voted. It is an act of
faith that the vote(s) are transmitted to the server and tallied.
There is no hardcopy and no conceivable way to recount or verify in
the event that a recount is ordered. This is a completely
unsatisfactory way of voting as no verification is possible without a
hardcopy to compare to the electronically tabulated totals.

One other item of interest caught my attention. There were signs
everywhere that cell phones were not permitted in the voting area. I
have no idea why, but I was wondering if they may create some sort of
interference with the machines, in much the same way that my computer
often reacts to my cell phone when it is in close proximity. Just a
guess as to why.

Anyway, these machines need to be backed up with paper hardcopies,
like the voting punch cards, just to provide a means to keep the
results verifiable.

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 09:07:00 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

One thing that is very strange is how much the exit polls differed from the
final results, especially in Ohio.


Rush Limbaugh correctly predicted that you whacko liberals will try to
claim that the actual votes were manipulated, rather than the polls.


Remember that Ohio uses Diebold voting
machines in many areas. These machines have no paper trail.


This is an outright lie. 77% of Ohio used punch cards. The rest used
optical scan paper ballots.

You've been proven to be a liar, a whacko liberal, a poor loser, and a
butt-boy sympathizer. Not to mention having a Cal 20 that somebody
threw away. It really sucks to be you.






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:36:51 -0500, Martin Baxter
wrote this crap:

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

One thing that is very strange is how much the exit polls differed from the
final results, especially in Ohio. Remember that Ohio uses Diebold voting
machines in many areas. These machines have no paper trail. Early in the
campaign, Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell, a GOP fundraiser, promised to deliver
Ohio to Bush. He later regretted having said that.


Really? No paper trail? Hasn't that been used as an argument against electronic voting machines?
How long have these Diebold machines been in use?


Jon-boy is flat out lying. 77% of Ohio used punch cards. The rest
used optical scan paper ballots.




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:55:28 GMT, wrote
this crap:

Anyway, these machines need to be backed up with paper hardcopies,
like the voting punch cards, just to provide a means to keep the
results verifiable.


Clearly, any voting system needs a paper backup. That should not even be a
question. Technologically speaking, it's not an obstacle to provide this. Only
those wanting to deceive would object.


For over forty years, my county voted on lever machines. There was no
paper trail from these, and nobody ever complained.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

felton wrote:

[snipped a rather disturbing tale]


Anyway, these machines need to be backed up with paper hardcopies,
like the voting punch cards, just to provide a means to keep the
results verifiable.

Thanks for the interesting info and links to all. I must agree with Felton, but then I'm somewhat paranoid, or perhaps
just a realist; scruples have a habit of falling by the wayside when politics shakes hands with religion.

Cheers
Marty