Reply #19: I'm in full agreement that accuracy is the priority at this point... [View All]

[cascadiance]

And at the current state of voting machines, their reliability, and who's running their companies, and their demands to keep code proprietary, that they should all be thrown out. I was just noting that for the long run, if and when Dems take over, that if voting machines were developed and used properly, they could be useful, and we shouldn't be rejecting voting machines altogether just because of the current sorry state of affairs of what's offered and how they've been pushed on us in this sorry state.

Original question is what would be done later after we take over, so that was the reason for me saying how my vision of voting machine technology would be used down the road. Use tried and true manual voting machines though until proper review and safeguards could be guaranteed, and with the principle that machines aren't trying to replace paper (and verifiable) ballots like they are trying to rationalize is a good thing they are doing now, but to augment the process of still using verifiable paper ballots to avoid the messes like we had in Florida in 2000.

I've made a point of calling the registrar's office here at Brad Friedman's request before the April 11th special election for Cunningham's seat to find out and confirm that we are using scanned ballots, which with Diebold's central tabulator still aren't perfect but are at least better than the touchscreen set up that some were afraid was going to be inflicted on us with McPherson's recent attempts to recertify them here. I'm as worried about those machines as you are in the present context and don't want them anyplace now.