On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:21:14 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:42:55 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


We have those damned electronic voting machines in Maryland, the ones
that do not provide any printed record of your vote.

I have never in my life, no matter what voting method was being used,
been provided a written copy of my ballot. I suspect that such would
be quite handy when I wanted to get my $10 for voting "correctly"....

Dave Hall

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:22:36 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:21:14 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:42:55 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


We have those damned electronic voting machines in Maryland, the ones
that do not provide any printed record of your vote.

I have never in my life, no matter what voting method was being used,
been provided a written copy of my ballot. I suspect that such would
be quite handy when I wanted to get my $10 for voting "correctly"....

The written piece is just to see if the machine recorded what you
voted. It then goes in the box at the polling place. You don't get
to carry it out. It's there for a possible recount. Just like punch
cards were, although you couldn't read the punchcard, and the machine
cams could be tinkered with.
Electronic is better if you can confirm your vote was recorded
properly and the confirmation is kept at the polling place.
It's not rocket science and the feds have to impose standards
to keep the faith.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:22:36 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:21:14 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:42:55 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


We have those damned electronic voting machines in Maryland, the ones
that do not provide any printed record of your vote.

I have never in my life, no matter what voting method was being used,
been provided a written copy of my ballot. I suspect that such would
be quite handy when I wanted to get my $10 for voting "correctly"....

The written piece is just to see if the machine recorded what you
voted. It then goes in the box at the polling place. You don't get
to carry it out. It's there for a possible recount. Just like punch
cards were, although you couldn't read the punchcard, and the machine
cams could be tinkered with.
Electronic is better if you can confirm your vote was recorded
properly and the confirmation is kept at the polling place.
It's not rocket science and the feds have to impose standards
to keep the faith.

--Vic

But....but.......the owner of Diebold is a republican......as are the owners
of Apple and Microsoft.

Don't you understand that it is a conspiracy to *steal* the elections by
switching to electronic voting?

Interestingly enough the Democrats demanded it after their idiot voters in
Palm Beach County could not understand a simple butterfly punch ballot. So
we spend $4 billion to go electronic and they now want paper ballots.

We can always count on those funny Democrats to bitch about something. ;-)

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 18:20:54 -0500, " JimH" not telling you @
pffftt.com wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .


The written piece is just to see if the machine recorded what you
voted. It then goes in the box at the polling place. You don't get
to carry it out. It's there for a possible recount. Just like punch
cards were, although you couldn't read the punchcard, and the machine
cams could be tinkered with.
Electronic is better if you can confirm your vote was recorded
properly and the confirmation is kept at the polling place.
It's not rocket science and the feds have to impose standards
to keep the faith.

--Vic

But....but.......the owner of Diebold is a republican......as are the owners
of Apple and Microsoft.

Doesn't matter, if the vote is verifiable. Besides, you know
Hailiburton will get the voting machine.

Interestingly enough the Democrats demanded it after their idiot voters in
Palm Beach County could not understand a simple butterfly punch ballot. So
we spend $4 billion to go electronic and they now want paper ballots.

Is that the election that Bush won because Dems were voting for Pat
Buchanan?

We can always count on those funny Democrats to bitch about something. ;-)

Counting the bitchers here might put that theory in doubt.
I still hear Republicans bitching about the Chicago count in 1960.
46 years ago.
Which reminds me, it wasn't around in 1960, but that Carolina Skiff
2180 sure looks like a fine fishing boat.

--Vic.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 18:20:54 -0500, " JimH" not telling you @
pffftt.com wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..


The written piece is just to see if the machine recorded what you
voted. It then goes in the box at the polling place. You don't get
to carry it out. It's there for a possible recount. Just like punch
cards were, although you couldn't read the punchcard, and the machine
cams could be tinkered with.
Electronic is better if you can confirm your vote was recorded
properly and the confirmation is kept at the polling place.
It's not rocket science and the feds have to impose standards
to keep the faith.

--Vic

But....but.......the owner of Diebold is a republican......as are the
owners
of Apple and Microsoft.

Doesn't matter, if the vote is verifiable. Besides, you know
Hailiburton will get the voting machine.

Interestingly enough the Democrats demanded it after their idiot voters in
Palm Beach County could not understand a simple butterfly punch ballot.
So
we spend $4 billion to go electronic and they now want paper ballots.

Is that the election that Bush won because Dems were voting for Pat
Buchanan?

We can always count on those funny Democrats to bitch about something.
;-)

Counting the bitchers here might put that theory in doubt.
I still hear Republicans bitching about the Chicago count in 1960.
46 years ago.

--Vic.


OMG. shaking my head in disbelief

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:20:54 -0500, JimH wrote:


Interestingly enough the Democrats demanded it after their idiot voters in
Palm Beach County could not understand a simple butterfly punch ballot. So
we spend $4 billion to go electronic and they now want paper ballots.

Really, only Democrats demanded a more accurate voting system? This may
be difficult for you to understand, but our previous system wasn't up to
the task of close elections. In past elections, that were not as close,
we never would have heard of Palm Beach. Those ballots would have simply
been thrown in the trash, as were 3 million ballots in the 2004 election,
including the 153,237 ballots trashed in Ohio. Kind of makes light of that
old statement, "Every vote counts", doesn't it? We have soldiers dying
trying to bring democracy to a foreign land, and you are whining about $4
billion spent to keep America a democracy?

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:20:54 -0500, JimH wrote:


Interestingly enough the Democrats demanded it after their idiot voters
in
Palm Beach County could not understand a simple butterfly punch ballot.
So
we spend $4 billion to go electronic and they now want paper ballots.

Really, only Democrats demanded a more accurate voting system? This may
be difficult for you to understand, but our previous system wasn't up to
the task of close elections. In past elections, that were not as close,
we never would have heard of Palm Beach. Those ballots would have simply
been thrown in the trash, as were 3 million ballots in the 2004 election,
including the 153,237 ballots trashed in Ohio. Kind of makes light of that
old statement, "Every vote counts", doesn't it? We have soldiers dying
trying to bring democracy to a foreign land, and you are whining about $4
billion spent to keep America a democracy?

So you agree that the electronic voting machines are the answer to *a more
accurate voting system*?

We have the worst voting system in the world. No verification of absentee
ballots. No voter ID cards. Hell, even the Iraqi's have a more reliable
system to prevent voter fraud (the purple finger) than we do. Amazing!!

Voter fraud, negative ads, lies and distortions. The whole process now
sickens me.

The system has to be changed.........and done so on a bipartisan basis. If
not the US election process will continue to be nothing more than a joke.
turn off voters and remain a bottomless money pocket for lawyers.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:20:54 -0500, JimH wrote:


Interestingly enough the Democrats demanded it after their idiot voters
in
Palm Beach County could not understand a simple butterfly punch ballot.
So
we spend $4 billion to go electronic and they now want paper ballots.

Really, only Democrats demanded a more accurate voting system? This may
be difficult for you to understand, but our previous system wasn't up to
the task of close elections. In past elections, that were not as close,
we never would have heard of Palm Beach. Those ballots would have simply
been thrown in the trash, as were 3 million ballots in the 2004 election,
including the 153,237 ballots trashed in Ohio. Kind of makes light of that
old statement, "Every vote counts", doesn't it? We have soldiers dying
trying to bring democracy to a foreign land, and you are whining about $4
billion spent to keep America a democracy?

Nixon and Kennedy was pretty damn close. Nobody knew who won until the next
morning.

Eisboch

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 23:39:39 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:37:39 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Palm Beach County could not understand a simple butterfly punch ballot. So
we spend $4 billion to go electronic and they now want paper ballots.

Is that the election that Bush won because Dems were voting for Pat
Buchanan?

That is somewhat misrepresented.
Buchanan got over 30,000 votes in the primary and only 3700 or so in
the general. It is clear he had a lot of support in Palm Beach County.
Most people think of "Palm Beach" (Ted Kennedy, beautiful people and
rich Jews) when they think of that county. The western part is
agricultural and a lot of those farmers were ****ed about plowing
their tomato crop under because Mexican tomatoes priced them out of
the market. Buchanan was the only anti-NAFTA candidate in that race.
There are also a lot of rednecks in West Palm Beach who liked his kick
ass attitude..

I would vote for Buchanan over Gore or Bush any day.
But I ain't a redneck. Wait. uh oh. Maybe I am.
BTW, just today I was talking to my dad in Punta Gorda and he was
bitching about how he paid $1.20 for a medium tomato, while he can
get a bushel of them for $10 in Stuart. He's a lifelong fisherman, so
he exaggerates some. But I believe him anyway.

--Vic

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:43:08 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Nixon and Kennedy was pretty damn close. Nobody knew who won until the next
morning.

Yup, it was Kennedy by 0.2% in the popular vote. However, it was a
different time. Nixon *publicly* refused to call for a recount wanting to
avoid a constitutional crisis. I hate to say it, but the quality of our
leadership has gone down since then, on both sides.