For Trustworthy Elections; Dump ALL the Machines, Require Paper

[kster]

by Rob Kall

http://www.opednews.com

SNIP...There are no 100% trustworthy electronic voting systems.

We must throw out the electronic machines and go to a paper only model, like they have in Canada and Switzerland. Nothing less will do for making the vote 100% voter verifiable, recountable and trustworthy.

Period!!

SNIP...We can do it right away. We should make it a federal law that all elections are carried out this way. Democracy deserves the best, and when it comes to voting, that means paper.

All the election integrity organizations and activists have to bite the bullet and face the truth. Anything less than trashing the machines and returning to paper is a compromise that settles for less than the best form of voting that serve democracy. I call for all voting integrity activists and organizations to join together in an effort to get congress to pass legislation to require the elimination of voting machines in all government elections. The citizens of the US, and every state, county and municipality deserve the best for democracy

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_061115_for_trustworthy_elec.htm

I'M KSTER AND I APPROVE OF THIS MESSAGE!!

[texpatriot2004]

1. Hand counted paper ballots now nm

[nofurylike]

11. yes! eom

[nofurylike]

2. absolutely. paper ballots, hand-counted at precincts in full view.

i was looking to see if kucinich's bill on this is posted here, in fact.

i do not have time to look or to post it, for days! but if it doesn't show up, maybe someone else will?
it's extremely important!!! especially since support for holt is popping back up now, and...

sorry. i meant to just support the OP and #1 post...
must go!


peace and solidarity!

[shance]

3. AS IMPORTANT AS ANY PAPER BALLOTS - PUBLIC TABULATION OF ALL VOTES

by community citizens. This is what the Congressional Leadership skillfully ignores because they realize,

IT IS NOT WHO CAST THE VOTES WHO DETERMINES THE ELECTION, BUT WHO COUNTS THE VOTES.

Time to take elections back to who both CAST AND COUNT THE VOTES DECIDE THE ELECTION.

[nofurylike]

12. absolutely! eom

[AJ9000]

4. Right! There was one sec of state who could not examine the vote b/c

the software used was propritary. That is insane. Can't remember the state unfortunately.

But we need to organize and really get this done. I feel like we dodged a bullet in 06, I don't want to be in this position again in 08.

[nofurylike]

13. true, "is insane"! eom

[kster]

5. What am I chopped liver, not even one vote

I'm taking my thread and going home.

[nofurylike]

8. and you so appreciated replies to your thread? not to mention

supporting your position before those who disagreed?

it was a good OP! but this way, the thread just gives them a good soap box.

all of us have been through posting without appreciation. it's what you do when you really give a damn. again and again....


peace and solidarity!

[nofurylike]

9. people are not so accustomed to recommending in

the so-called smaller forums. sometimes do, but it's all too rare.
and threads go off latest page so soon...

doesn't hurt to ask people to recommend.
i noticed i didn't remember to do so, too. i apologize. it's a good thread. if not too late, i will.


peace

[philb]

6. I think opti-scan can be made relatively reliable if proper equip. & process implemented

While any compiler can be hacked if proper process isn't implemented, I think its possible to make them relatively reliable.

One needs open source code in compilers with audit before and after election,
and checks and balances built into the system;
and random audits of a percentage of precincts.
But given such measures I think opti-scan can be relaibly used.
I fully trust results in my opti-scan system(Leon Co. Florida) currently.
We have a very careful SOE, Ion Sancho, but I understand one can't depend on lone individuals.

[nofurylike]

14. i'm sorry, but opti-scan has proven unreliable too. the REASON

for the "paper ballots, hand-counted" threads is that it is the only viable solution, and works very well in many places in the world.
it would also include 'the people' in the vote count, as it does in countries where people go to watch the count.
we've got to make it into a community activity.


peace!

[slackmaster]

7. Mmkay, but I'm going to have to disagree with the "100%" part

There have always been problems with paper-based systems.

From cited article: "There are no 100% trustworthy electronic voting systems."

As someone who has been a systems analyst (not just computers) since 1981 I can assure you there are no 100% trustworthy any kind of systems. Any system can be compromised when it isn't properly designed and overseen and audited.

Paper systems are simpler, more visible, and perhaps more easily secured than technologically sophisticated ones, but even they have vulnerabilities so obvious (and historically proven) there's no point in enumerating them.

[nofurylike]

15. yes: "Paper systems are simpler, more visible,

and perhaps more easily secured..."

is what really matters.


peace!

[nofurylike]

10. K&R :) peace! eom

[nofurylike]

16. the links, to kucinich's bill, i was looking for here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2721790

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=458779

please everyone check these out!


peace!