Paper ballots NOW!!!! Hand counts Now!!!!! n/t

[In Truth We Trust]

[Dookus]

1. I honestly don't understand

why hand counts are considered to be more reliable.

[In Truth We Trust]

3. It is THE MOST fraWd proof method. Optical scan counters can

be corrupted. In fact there is plenty of evidence that that is in fact how we were screwed in Nov.

The AP rec'd a direct feed from the optical scan which naturally means that they can be hacked and IMO were.

Lastly see post #2 here; it correctly states that this method is used successfully elsewhere and [lease don't forget we used for CEBTURIES without the inherent fraWd potential that electronic machines present.

[Dookus]

4. sorry, I don't see it

instead of one chance to be corrupt, you've got thousands.

[GetTheRightVote]

2. Yes, I agree, paper/hand count can not be rigged w/ small group count

the Australia method has never failed. In fact we used it for years and years until they started with machines so the elections could be rigged.

:kick:

[imenja]

5. we are not Australia

Our system is not set up to accommodate the level of supervision necessary to make hand counts anything but an unfettered orgy of fraud. The degree of change in the system and numbers of volunteers required would be high, possibly more than a million. Have you figured out how many precincts there are in the nation and how many paid staffers and volunteers would be necessary for each? If so, let me know. My guess is the number is higher than the entire pool of Democratic volunteers in the last election.
In Switzerland, people leave bicycles unlocked all the time. What would happen if we tried that here? The bicycles are the same; it is the propensity toward dishonesty that is greater in our society. Brazilians elected a socialist president in 2000 with their first ever use of electronic vote counts. Hand counts had always yielded high levels of fraud there.
In our own country we haven't used hand counted paper ballots since the nineteenth-century. No one I've seen who advocates hand counts seems to know one thing about how it worked (or didn't) in nineteenth-century America. 2000 was hardly the first fraudulent election in American history.