Wash Post cited dozens of voting fraud incidents in Nov. 3 article. link

[kuozzman]

I never saw this! It gives links to I'd say at least 50 or so various news reports in the weeks leading up to the election. Why'd they stop the coverage? (Rhetorical question) In case you don't notice, the article is five pages. This is part of the box on the right side of the page "About This Article":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15310-2004Oct7.html

The nature of the controversy surrounding electronic voting has changed little since reports surfaced in the past year questioning its security and reliability. What has changed is the urgency. With time running out between now and Election Day, more activists, politicians and -- most importantly -- voters want firm answers about whether the technology that more than 50 million people will use to choose their president this year will record their choices correctly.

Most experts on either side of the issue acknowledge that it would be virtually impossible to modify paperless machines to include voter-verified paper records, but that is not stopping an increasingly vocal grassroots movement from trying to make that change happen before Nov. 2. In at least one case in Florida, a state with a unique and notorious history of Election Day troubles, a federal judge ruled that a paper trail is a must.

[DeepModem Mom]

1. Good find -- thanks!