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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: H-Man who wrote (105384)	12/8/2000 10:48:35 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

I like that system. But the paper receipt (with bar code) should be examined by the voter for accuracy, then passed into a scanning box. This would be a tight system resulting in the intent of the voter being properly recorded 99.99999% of the time. BTW, I worked in a precinct many years ago that had lever machines. The back of the machine had dials that could have been "mischiefed" if the precinct manager so desired.

To: H-Man who wrote (105384)	12/8/2000 10:55:36 AM
From: Master (Hijacked)	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

My concern isn't so much with the mechanics of computerized voting as it is with the anonymity of the voter. Did you ever go on a site like Yahoo or Excite to open an E-mail account only to be bombarded with unsolicited junk mail afterwards? Imagine if you voted for a Democratic President and a Republican Senator on the same ballot. You are labeled as non-partisan voter. If there is no anonymity, come next election, you might be solicited by Democrats who want to persuade you to vote for their Senator or by Republicans who urge you to vote for their Presidential candidate.