If the Democrats win an election, does that make unauditable voting machines OK?

[mhatrw]

I can't post a poll (DU is at level 3), but I was wondering given some strange reactions I'm seeing around here.

[Maven]

1. NO

In fact, it only makes it MORE imperative that we use our power now to get private interests and secret code out of the elections process.

[johnaries]

2. NO! NOOOOOOOO! NO! NO! N.O. NO! nt

[tavalon]

3. No, absolutely not!

This is a priority one issue for me and for many others.

[Greybnk48]

4. No, now we can get rid of them.

[uppityperson]

5. No. Not at all. No no no

[Raksha]

6. NO!!! Unauditable machines are for people and political parties

that can't win an election except by cheating.

[Roy]

7. No just a thing of the past

[NorthernSpy]

8. NO! Not just no, but HELL no!

Our elections need to be scrupulously fair. That means that voting methods must not be susceptible to any kind of tampering, votes must leave a verifiable paper trail, and there must be an absolute intolerance for dirty tricks and vote suppression. I'm hoping that the Republicans will finally agree with us on this stuff.

Unauditable voting machines are of the devil. Their very existence just undermines and sours the whole process.



(edit: typo)

[ikojo]

9. No, also not everyone at my polling place voted

on the electronic machines. I was voter number 457 and I voted on paper, for which I was the 190th person at that polling place to do so.

[mhatrw]

10. Wow! That is a well informed precinct!

Congratulations!

[Random_Australian]

11. Nope-alicious. No way. Not ever.

[mattclearing]

12. Absolutely not.

And it's clear that the Republicans stole heavily to make this as close as it was, looking at the exit polls.

[Fleshdancer]

13. Hell NO! It just makes the battle easier to fight.

Besides, it would be stupid to ignore the BBV issue two years before the '08 election.

[OneBlueSky]

14. not at all . . . you can be sure that election fraud occurred . . .

even though we won in a landslide . . . it just wasn't determinative because it was overwhelmed by the huge turnouts and margins . . .

[Red Right and BLUE]

15. NO!!!

I still want to go back to paper.

[Nicole]

16. Absolutely not.

We have to keep at it.

[bliss_eternal]

17. Fuck no.

:)

[magellan]

18. Hell no

Throw the machines in the ocean. Pretty reef. Lotsa fishies. They'll get better use out of them than we ever will.

[renate]

19. no.

If it is the will of the people that a Republican should win an election, then a Republican should win, fair and square.

I really hope that this election will get everybody on our side about this.

[lapfog_1]

20. Please see this thread.

It's our FIRST order of business...

even more than campaign finance reform.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2627719&mesg_id=2627719

[Wiley50]

21. Not by a very long shot, we just beat the republican nickel, this time

As Greg Palast wrote in his recent essay " How we lost the midterm elections",
the registration suppression, plus the "spoilage", plus the machines adds up
to a 5% head start for the republicans. We mobilized ( actually we can't even
take all or even much of the credit) enough support for a change to meet and
beat (by a little bit) their 5% advantage. The Republicans generated much of
the backlash against them ( and, therefore, the advantage for us) themselves
by the lack of success of their policies and the scandals made inevitable by
flaunted hypocracy.

We still have to take our stolen nickel back.

But, at least, if we don't also fall victim to our own pride, we have the power
to do so.

We've got two years.

What time do we start work tomorrow?

[lildreamer316]

22. What? Who do you think we are, hypocrites?

Paper trails, baby. NO computers at all, or very clear and transparent elections would make me very happy.

[mhatrw]

24. No. I think some here have an agenda of keeping machines

that make cheating as easy as a mouse click. However, they are wisely avoiding this thread.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. No, BUT

It shows that there is a margin of fraud.

[windbreeze]

25. Absolutely NOT

and if that's what the r's are thinking, they can forget it...control means we do something to correct this problem...NOW...before 2008 gets here...
windbreeze

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. NO

and Diebold is thininig of getting out of the bizz, since too many distrust them anyway... per their statmment last morning

[radfringe]

27. NO

Too many reports of vote-flipping and other problems.

If we are going to 'embrace' e-voting there needs to be a paper trail and ways to verify votes other than running the machines a couple of times

when an accountant is totaling up a column of numbers, it's good practice to do it twice for verification. Checking the first total against the second and repeating it a 3rd/4th time to ensure accuracy

can we expect less than that when counting votes? Voting is the heart and soul of a democracy. We must be able to TRUST the counts are accurate.

to quote Reagan... Trust but Verify

[Eurobabe]

28. Fuck no!! OSS & paper receipts only