Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (38864)	11/19/2000 9:45:46 AM
From: flatsville	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Pearly-- The whole world is watching the the rock of "free and open elections" (the USA if you don't get my drift) so if there is a problem.... how come nothing has been done about it for friggin years The only explanation I can offer is as follows: Votomatic systems are cheap compared to the more modern optical scanners. Densly populated urban areas with many voting sites (precincts) to equip like the idea of cheap. They are also light-weight and easy to store. The metal and plastic desk stands fold up into square about 36" x 36" with a suitcase type handle built in and are only about 5-6" thick. They probably weigh under 15 lbs. each. (Don't hold me to the specs...I'm doing this from memory.) No electrical hook-ups needed. You're no doubt aware by now the system has a high error rate. wsr did a couple of posts on this. In the past, voter complacency didn't bring the error rate much into question...at least not nationally. This time it did...during a presidential election...in full view of 24/7 media coverage. Ooops... I hope this is the end of the system...But a lightly populated rural county south of me just announced that they have no intention of junking their Votomatic system. (Less than 10% of voters in this state still use Votomatic.) It works just fine, thanks (so they say.) They have no problem with hand recount if necessary. The fiscally repsonsible county board doesn't want to spend the taxpayer's money on a fancy-schmancy optical scanners. So cheap is still good for these guys. Perhaps a grant from the state to upgrade their system might persuade them. I don't know. Hope this helps.