[geeks] I just saw...

[Phil Stracchino]

jvdg at sparcpark.net wrote:
> See above. Are you so disenfranchised that you will not give the voting
> process the benefit of doubt, for now? Can we not assume that voting fraud
> is the exception, rather than the rule, and that therefore in the vast
> majority of cases, the electronic vote (count) can be used without fear of
> fraud, thus making the voting process quicker, less labour intensive and
> less prone to counting errors?

Quite honestly, considering the history of ballot-box stuffing, "the
dead vote", and the KNOWN shenanigans during the last three elections --
including intentionally providing insufficient voting machines in likely
Democratic-voting areas, mass submission of forged address-change forms
to invalidate voter registrations, selective purging of voter rolls, the
inch-thick manual distributed by Gore campaign staffers to Democratic
poll observers in Florida detailing how to disqualify military absentee
ballots (considered likely to hold Republican votes) on the basis of
minor technicalities, etc, I personally would say the clear assumption
is that voting fraud is the rule rather than the exception.

Note I'm not saying that "vote tabulation at all precincts will be
fraudulent, with some rare exceptions"; I'm saying "vote fraud will be
present in the election", probably without exceptions.  There has been
strong speculation already that in the 2004 Presidential election, vote
fraud tipped Ohio from Kerry to Bush and changed the outcome of the
election, but those were Diebold DRE voting machines and there is no way
the Ohio election results can ever be audited or verified.  We just have
to take the word of a company whose CEO publicly promised to "deliver
the election for Bush".


-- 
 Same geek, same site, new location
 Phil Stracchino                     Landline: 603-429-0220
 phil.stracchino at speakeasy.net         Mobile: 603-216-7037
 Renaissance Man, Unix generalist, Perl hacker, Free Stater