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 : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (2697)	9/18/2003 2:44:16 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

Ray, In rereading my last post, I should have expressed my views more tactfully. I'm a rather opinionated cuss, and I suppose the great paper ballot vs. voting machine debate is a topic I see in black and white. Ballot box stuffing is almost as old as the Constitution itself. As child I can vaguely recall various scandals along those lines making headline news 40 years ago. I'd probably go along with the idea paper ballots make it harder to cheat than going in through the back door of a computer, at least to some extent, but I suppose I balk at the idea that old methods subject to abuse are better than new methods subject to abuse. As I see it, any method involving a clandestine honor system at some stage of the process is likely to be abused. We do have an accurate system for counting money that works because it may be self audited. You have printed receipts for all your transactions, and you have a statement to check those receipts against. How you spend your money is your business is not subject to public scrutiny. So, why not use the same system for counting votes as we use for counting money? I find the phenomena of unauditable computer generated voting results at least as alarming as the proponents of paper ballots. Where my view differs is it strikes me as being a little like changing seats on the Titanic.