After reading many posts about recounts.

[baba]

I'm still not clear about how they will be able to recount in Ohio and other states where there was computer voting but no paper trail. I understand that they can count (and recount) the votes that came from precincts where there WAS a paper trail. What is the piece I am missing here? Forgive me, there is just so much info out there that my head is starting to spin....:crazy:

[jsamuel]

1. I think that each machine has a recording of the votes and each one was...

locked down and secured after the election. So, in a recount, they would reanalyze the machines and get a new total, directly from the machines.

[thephaseshift]

2. There IS a paper trail

Come on guys, this keeps coming up...the machines used were mostly one of two types: punch cards (hand counted? Not sure), and optically-scanned punch cards. There were some DREs, but not that many (I don't know the percentages though). A recount IS by and large possible in Ohio. All that can really go wrong would involve the cards themselves: having them disqualified or otherwise seeing them 'vanish' before they can be counted.

[EST]

3. You are almost right.

The optically scanned ballots are not punch-cards. They are rather large documents whereon the voter blackens a circle, draws a line, or that sort of thing to make candidate selections. There are no punched holes, chads, or other such to worry with as there are with punch cards. These ballots are easily readable just by picking them up and looking at them.
The punched card type are a little different. Normally, a common pattern, kind of like a clothing pattern which has names and party affiliations of candidates instead of cloth cutting lines, is used and the voter pushes a stylus through a hole beside the candidate of choice. The stylus also penetrates a data card, making a hole which is then readable by machine at high speed, or by hand at low speed.

[baba]

4. So there were not very many?

So contrary to popular belief, there were not a lot of the computer touch screen voting machines?

[izzie]

5. I can not get around most of this stuff.

My father who was always into this and stocks etc used to tell me to put it in your own family thinking and how you live and it would ring a bell. So looking at it that way I see that I will not be able to buy as much food at the market this week as last if my money is worth less. But the man from EU could buy more for his money. Every thing else I buy, gas, oil, cable is all going to cost me more. I think I am being pushed to the edge. I think it is bad for me so bad for the country.

[RunningFromCongress]

6. 70% of Ohio uses punch cards aka florida 2000 ballots

[jsamuel]

7. At least they have a uniform way of evaluating the ballots, unlike FL-2000

[life_long_dem]

9. Before the election Blackwell said

that if a ballot has 2 or fewer chads hanging, the ballot would count. At least there should be less fighting about which ballots count.

Unless Blackwell tries to change the rules again.

[DELUSIONAL]

8. Even if they were using BBV machines -- didn't the people

who showed up to vote have to sign a register? Although this doesn't show how people voted it is a record of who showed up to vote. Your voting record -- which elections you voted in becomes public in most if not all states at some point.

This is often used against politicians -- I believe Cheney has a very bad voting record -- he couldn't be bothered with voting. But then after this election perhaps we know why?

[mopinko]

10. even touch screen has some info to check

at least there is the question of whether the total on the machine matches the total voters that signed in, and whether the totals sent to the central tabulator and the individual machines match.
i am very curious about what kind of electronic trail is left in these machines. forensic computer technicians find lots of things that people don't realize they left behind.