They sort of get it but then they blow it. An outline of problems with voting machines in the opening section is followed by an acceptance of the 'glitches' in the system being tolerated until perfected. Oh and there's the whining corporate media calling Democrats complainers for speaking up about getting screwed (see bold para below). Oddly enough the line by elections officials about Democrats complaining MUST BE A LIE. Name one major Democrat who has challenged an election in the last three cycles? They probably made up the quote.
TIME Magazine 10.29.06
Can This Machine Be Trusted?
woman walked into a polling place in Peoria, Ill., last week and proceeded to use one of the new electronic voting machines set up for early voting. She logged on, went through each contest and seemed to be making her choices. After reviewing each race, the machine checked to see if she was satisfied with her selections and wanted to move on. Each time, she pressed yes, and the machine progressed to the next race. When she was done, a waving American flag appeared on the screen, indicating that her votes had been cast and recorded. But there was a problem. The woman had not made any choices at all. She had only browsed. Now when she told the election judges she was ready to do it again—but this time actually vote—they told her it was too late. Pressing the last button, they said, is like dropping your ballot in an old-fashioned ballot box. There's no getting it back.
So what?
So this: In one week, more than 80 million Americans will go to the polls, and a record number of them—90%—will either cast their vote on a computer or have it tabulated that way. When that many people collide with that many high-tech devices, there are going to be problems. Some will be machine malfunctions. Some could come from sabotage by poll workers or voters themselves. But in a venture this large, trouble is most likely to come from just plain human error, a fact often overlooked in an environment as charged and conspiratorial as America is in today. Four years after Congress passed a law requiring every state to vote by a method more reliable than the punch-card system that paralyzed Florida and the nation in 2000, the 2006 election is shaping up into a contest not just between Democrats and Republicans but also between people who believe in technology and those who fear machines cannot be trusted to count votes in a closely divided democracy. Perhaps the biggest fallacy in this debate is the notion that elections were perfect before Congress decided to hold them on computers. They weren't.
Snip
Concerns about fraud are heightened by the fact that with some electronic voting machines, there is no such thing as a real recount. When asked again for the tally, the computer could spit back the same response as the first time. For that reason, at least 27 states have built in a backup that requires electronic voting machines to provide an attached voter-verified paper trail—a running ticker that allows voters to see on paper that their votes are recorded as cast. That way, if there's a question about the electronic tally, the paper records can be counted by hand.
Snip
County election officials who spoke to TIME reported that most of the fears they field about the new machines come from Democrats, who have not won a national election in three cycles. It may be that a solid Democratic win in 2006 will allay some of their worries. It follows, of course, that if the Republicans lose, they will take up the charge. In fact, that's already happening in some places this year. My comment: "most of the fears...come from Democrats" Well, that wouldn't be the Democratic Party, which has taken a very low key approach to this issue. And it COULD NOT come from Democratic candidates. Which major or minor Democratic candidate has filed an election challenge? I bet they just pulled this out of their ears and made it up. Could be wrong but, even if quoted accurately, the quotation is so off base, its uncritical journalism to include such a stupid statement.
In a country of 300 million, it is far preferable for partisans, poll workers, defensive voting-machine manufacturers and voters to adjust to the new technologies, eliminate their weak spots and work to keep human errors to a minimum. In that way, voting by machine may someday be no more mysterious than making a visit to the ATM.
My comment: Note their acceptance of electronic voting that they've described as inadequate. The prime value here is to demystify voting macines...NOT TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND SEE THAT VOTE COUNTED, which 92% of Americans want. It's like we're living in 1984 with the Newsspeak magazines and newspapers writing only to condition us to accept their means of manipulation and control, in this case flawed voting machines which actually divert us from the larger issue in elections - the systematic disenfranchisement of poor and minority voters for decades - all without a computer involved. 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
