Are you comfortable with Diebold counting or recording votes??

[RadiationTherapy]

I know we are all verbose, but a yes or no will do. I am not speaking of any particular contest.

[saltpoint]

1. I wouldn't trust them to run a bake sale.

[annabanana]

2. I think you will find a ready idea of how we feel on our

Election Reform pages:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

[Vincardog]

14. I would trust them to run the bake sale. I would not trust them to count the profits.

[RadiationTherapy]

16. Actually, the casual dialogue around here reveals

a comfort level with this system that surprises me quite a bit. I asked the question for this reason.

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

3. Sure---as comfortable as any other company.

[annabanana]

18. You really should find out who owns that company..

and what they have said about "delivering the votes". . .

[RadiationTherapy]

24. Are you concerned about voter fraud? n/t

[Nite Owl]

4. No

nor any of the privatized vote companies.

[Swamp Rat]

5. no

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. No. n/t

[Rex]

7. Hell no! They are evil and work for Repukes!

[Zoigal]

8. No way.

[backscatter712]

9. No. Their products are vote-stealing machines!

Black boxes that only store votes electronically, leaving no usable way (even VVPR isn't usable enough) to verify the count properly.

I'm a software engineer that works with embedded systems for a living. Diebold election machines are a secure as a bank vault with a screen door.

[demnan]

10. Of course not

I was all over this board yesterday talking about this too. There's actually a bill that Kucinich wants to introduce about requiring paper backup for ballots but I don't know that much about it.

[terisan]

11. no

[Kittycat]

12. No, but apparently the HRC supporters don't have a problem with it. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

13. No, sir, I am not.

[tom_paine]

15. NO! And I don't care if my candidate is the one winning the "surprise upset victory"

The issue is unverfifiable, non-transparent Third-World privatized "voting" systems which prevent any belief in any electoral result.

[Individualist]

17. NO!

[Kucinich4America]

19. Not only no, but HELL no!

Not in the General, not in the Primary, not for the local dog catcher race.

It's time to break out the bats. And not exactly the way Howard Dean did :evilgrin:

[Kip Humphrey]

20. NO

[helderheid]

21. My sig line should answer your question

[XOKCowboy]

22. No

They can make an ATM where your image is recorded on camera and never miss a dime of any transaction but can't make a voting machine that's reliable. Hmmm :eyes:

[Echo In Light]

23. "No sir...I didn't like it."

[ileus]

25. Soon we'll be in control of them....then it'll be our turn.

Sure we may have to overcome the GOP with big numbers in 2008 but they won't be able to fix a landslide in their favor. Hillary's going to deliever us 50 states then the machines will be ours....For 8 years we'll do to them what they've done to us. Maybe even 16 years if we do it right.

[ret5hd]

26. so, uhhhh....uhhmmm...what exactly makes you any better than them?

[Echo In Light]

27. Never stoop to their base reptilian level man...

[RadiationTherapy]

28. I understand your irony. n/t