paperless voting = Are our votes are being counted as they are cast?

[merrill]

New paperless voting machines are raising questions about whether we can even trust that our votes are being counted as they are cast. When voter confidence decreases, citizens vote less and less, leading to a culture of non-voting.

Major changes are needed to ensure that every vote counts, that all voters are represented through electoral reforms like instant run-off voting, none-of-the-above options, and proportional representation, and that non-major party candidates have a chance to run for office and participate in debates, and that elections are publicly financed.

Reclaim Democracy! Revoke Corporate Corruption of American Democracy

 

[Stephanie]

Now who was it that was whining about paper hanging chads?

 

[occupied]

Who was it decided that the free market should be entirely trusted with the integrity of voting systems and then resisted all attempts to fix the many flaws that soon became apparent?

 

[occupied]

A little something to chew on.

Dan Rather Reports - Voter Ballot Problems | Voter Action on Blip

 

[merrill]

face it computers can be designed to do anything including voting for the wrong candidate...

 

[merrill]

A little something to chew on.

Dan Rather Reports - Voter Ballot Problems | Voter Action on Blip

Democratic leadership should be calling for large and deep investigations.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Would a paperless system really be that much more vulnerable to voter fraud than the paper ballots being fed into a counting machine?

I hope I live to see US voting over the internet.

 

[occupied]

Would a paperless system really be that much more vulnerable to voter fraud than the paper ballots being fed into a counting machine?

I hope I live to see US voting over the internet.

Hell no, without a recountable verifiable voting system we can never be sure who actually won.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Would a paperless system really be that much more vulnerable to voter fraud than the paper ballots being fed into a counting machine?

I hope I live to see US voting over the internet.

Hell no, without a recountable verifiable voting system we can never be sure who actually won.

I suppose I see that... How do you do a 're-count' when there's nothing to re-do?

Seems like there has to be a way though... It would shore be convenient.

 

[merrill]

It seems to me a party that did not want to lose would go to great lengths not to lose. Perhaps this illegal frame of mind sprouted in the 70's.

EDIT: Copied material removed because no link was provided.

 

[merrill]

Another point to consider how many names that occupied positions in the Nixon admin still find their way into Reagan,Bush and Bush admin?

 

[merrill]

Because there is no voter verified paper record, it is not possible to audit the electronic vote for accuracy, nor is it possible to conduct an independent recount.

This is a grotesquely designed, over-complicated, expensive system fraught with the potential for mistakes and undetected fraud. We should not trust the future of our nation to such easily influenced technology.

On July 23, 2003, the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute reviewed the electronic voting system in Maryland and found that it had security far below even the most minimal security standards.

 

[merrill]

In the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2004, four top computer scientists from the University of California, Johns Hopkins University, and Rice University similarly critiqued Diebold’s voting system:

EDIT: Copied material removed because no link was provided.

 

[merrill]

Consider the fact the a certain party will go to great lengths to accomplish its' agenda even if is a criminal activity:

How "Iran" and "Contra" came to be said in the same breath was the result of complicated covert activities, all carried out, the players said, in the name of democracy.

In 1985, while Iran and Iraq were at war, Iran made a secret request to buy weapons from the United States. McFarlane sought Reagan's approval, in spite of the embargo against selling arms to Iran. McFarlane explained that the sale of arms would not only improve U.S. relations with Iran, but might in turn lead to improved relations with Lebanon, increasing U.S. influence in the troubled Middle East.

Reagan was driven by a different obsession. He had become frustrated at his inability to secure the release of the seven American hostages being held by Iranian terrorists in Lebanon. As president, Reagan felt that "he had the duty to bring those Americans home," and he convinced himself that he was not negotiating with terrorists. While shipping arms to Iran violated the embargo, dealing with terrorists violated Reagan's campaign promise never to do so. Reagan had always been admired for his honesty.

The arms-for-hostages proposal divided the administration. Longtime policy adversaries Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz opposed the deal, but Reagan, McFarlane and CIA director William Casey supported it. With the backing of the president, the plan progressed. By the time the sales were discovered, more than 1,500 missiles had been shipped to Iran. Three hostages had been released, only to be replaced with three more, in what Secretary of State George Shultz called "a hostage bazaar."

When the Lebanese newspaper "Al-Shiraa" printed an exposé on the clandestine activities in November 1986, Reagan went on television and vehemently denied that any such operation had occurred. He retracted the statement a week later, insisting that the sale of weapons had not been an arms-for-hostages deal. Despite the fact that Reagan defended the actions by virtue of their good intentions, his honesty was doubted. Polls showed that only 14 percent of Americans believed the president when he said he had not traded arms for hostages.

While probing the question of the arms-for-hostages deal, Attorney General Edwin Meese discovered that only $12 million of the $30 million the Iranians reportedly paid had reached government coffers. Then-unknown Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council explained the discrepancy: he had been diverting funds from the arms sales to the Contras, with the full knowledge of National Security Adviser Admiral John Poindexter and with the unspoken blessing, he assumed, of President Reagan.

Con't:

The Iran-Contra Affair . Reagan . WGBH American Experience | PBS

 

[merrill]

Are our votes are being counted as they are cast?

Electoral Reform -- Ralph Nader for President in 2008

Another Corrupt Election or Conspiracy Theory?

A Zogby Poll from August of 2006 indicates that 92% of Americans are worried about our votes being counted in secret. After all of the problems with the 2006 elections, I would say that even more people are concerned today. The New York Times recently published an article “Can You Count on Voting Machines?” A growing number of people are beginning to rightly distrust electronic voting machines and ask themselves “Does my vote really get counted?”

Topics on this page:

1. How the votes are counted in secret
2. Why absentee and early voting should be avoided
3. About affidavits other efforts to make sure that the votes are counted accurately
4. Will voters be scared away if you talk about the problem?
5. How to change government from within

Project Vote Count

 

[merrill]

Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything

Stalin - Communist Dictator

Project Vote Count

 

[Vengeance]

a blast from the past-

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmVkCF5Qnp0]Thomas Poarch Onion News Network - YouTube[/ame]

 

[merrill]

Instant Run-off Voting

Instant Run-off Voting (IRV) allows voters to rank their candidates in order of choice: 1 for their first choice, 2, 3, and so on. If a candidate receives a majority of the votes, then that candidate wins.

But when no candidate has a majority of votes, then the last place candidate is defeated, and in an instant second round of counting, the eliminated candidate’s votes go to each voter’s next choice. Your vote for second choice thus counts if your first choice is unable to win. Rounds of counting continue until there is a majority winner.

The system of IRV encourages electoral competition. Because each voter does not have to worry about "spoiling" the election or "wasting" their vote on a less popular 3rd party candidate, more citizens will be encouraged to participate in elections - both as voters and as candidates. Encouraging more candidates to run will foster a broader political debate and create a more engaged citizenry.

Currently, the US electoral system is in crisis; less than half the potential voters vote - the lowest in the Western, industrialized world. The winner-take-all election system often pushes voters to vote their fears and not their beliefs - or to simply not vote at all.

We have not had a President win an election with the majority vote since the first President Bush.

Having a president with less than majority support undermines the perceived voter mandate of the government, and reduces voter confidence in the overall electoral system. IRV will help fix these problems and will allow more citizens to vote for the candidates they truly support.

Advances for IRV are being made both around the world and within the United States. IRV is currently used in over 11 cities and states including Burlington, Vermont; Cary, North Carolina; San Fransisco, California; and Takoma Park, Maryland.

It will soon be implemented in 8 additional cities; and for the 2007-2008 legislative session, IRV is being considered for gubenatorial, congressional, and local elections in 7 additional states including Minnesota, Arizona, Arkansas, and Colorado. IRV is also used in major elections in Australia, Ireland, and Great Britain.

Implementation of IRV will also save taxpayers money. By erasing the need for two-round runoff elections, IRV saves cities the cost of holding a second election. Before adopting IRV, San Fransisco spent as much as two million dollars on each runoff election. IRV would also alleviate the need for politicians to rely on special interest donors for large sums, since they would only need to raise money for one election instead of two.

Compared to the traditional electoral system, IRV is quicker, less expensive, and is more likely to reflect the desires of more voters. IRV is endorsed by the USA Today, The Nation, the League of Women Voters, as well as the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. IRV also enjoys bipartisan support in the 110th Congress.

As former Independent candidate John Anderson said in an article about the Ralph Nader 2004 Independent presidential campaign: "Having an election between two candidates is obviously better than a one-party dictatorship, but having an election among more than two candidates is better than a two-party duopoly."

He then highlighted how Ross Perot’s candidacy increased voter interest in the presidential election and how that was healthy for our democracy. Anderson concluded: "With Instant Run-off Voting, we would determine a true majority winner in one election and banish the spoiler concept.

Voters would not have to calculate possible perverse consequences of voting for their favorite candidate. They could vote their hopes, not their fears."

InstantRunoff.com

Electoral Reform -- Ralph Nader for President in 2008

 

[The T]

Instant Run-off Voting

Instant Run-off Voting (IRV) allows voters to rank their candidates in order of choice: 1 for their first choice, 2, 3, and so on. If a candidate receives a majority of the votes, then that candidate wins.

But when no candidate has a majority of votes, then the last place candidate is defeated, and in an instant second round of counting, the eliminated candidate’s votes go to each voter’s next choice. Your vote for second choice thus counts if your first choice is unable to win. Rounds of counting continue until there is a majority winner.

The system of IRV encourages electoral competition. Because each voter does not have to worry about "spoiling" the election or "wasting" their vote on a less popular 3rd party candidate, more citizens will be encouraged to participate in elections - both as voters and as candidates. Encouraging more candidates to run will foster a broader political debate and create a more engaged citizenry.

Currently, the US electoral system is in crisis; less than half the potential voters vote - the lowest in the Western, industrialized world. The winner-take-all election system often pushes voters to vote their fears and not their beliefs - or to simply not vote at all.

We have not had a President win an election with the majority vote since the first President Bush.

Having a president with less than majority support undermines the perceived voter mandate of the government, and reduces voter confidence in the overall electoral system. IRV will help fix these problems and will allow more citizens to vote for the candidates they truly support.

Advances for IRV are being made both around the world and within the United States. IRV is currently used in over 11 cities and states including Burlington, Vermont; Cary, North Carolina; San Fransisco, California; and Takoma Park, Maryland.

It will soon be implemented in 8 additional cities; and for the 2007-2008 legislative session, IRV is being considered for gubenatorial, congressional, and local elections in 7 additional states including Minnesota, Arizona, Arkansas, and Colorado. IRV is also used in major elections in Australia, Ireland, and Great Britain.

Implementation of IRV will also save taxpayers money. By erasing the need for two-round runoff elections, IRV saves cities the cost of holding a second election. Before adopting IRV, San Fransisco spent as much as two million dollars on each runoff election. IRV would also alleviate the need for politicians to rely on special interest donors for large sums, since they would only need to raise money for one election instead of two.

Compared to the traditional electoral system, IRV is quicker, less expensive, and is more likely to reflect the desires of more voters. IRV is endorsed by the USA Today, The Nation, the League of Women Voters, as well as the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. IRV also enjoys bipartisan support in the 110th Congress.

As former Independent candidate John Anderson said in an article about the Ralph Nader 2004 Independent presidential campaign: "Having an election between two candidates is obviously better than a one-party dictatorship, but having an election among more than two candidates is better than a two-party duopoly."

He then highlighted how Ross Perot’s candidacy increased voter interest in the presidential election and how that was healthy for our democracy. Anderson concluded: "With Instant Run-off Voting, we would determine a true majority winner in one election and banish the spoiler concept.

Voters would not have to calculate possible perverse consequences of voting for their favorite candidate. They could vote their hopes, not their fears."

InstantRunoff.com

Electoral Reform -- Ralph Nader for President in 2008

Don't tinker with a thing except getting the stranglehold off of the system that Repubicans/Democrats have sewed up for themselves that make it difficult for others outside either party to run for office.

*I* would be willing to bet that YOU are one of those that thinks that the Electoral College should be changed as well, aren't you?

 

[merrill]

Who supports Instant Run Off Voting/IRV

FairVote.org | Endorsers of Instant Runoff Voting