Quote:

The Ohio study found that the iVotronic machines can be corrupted by use of a handheld device such as a PDA and noted other problems that could allow tampering or result in incorrectly registered votes. Other groups also are raising concerns about the impact of the machines on South Carolina's potentially influential primaries. The groups Georgians for Verified Voting, Iowans for Voting Integrity, the North Carolina Coalition for Verified Voting, and the South Carolina Progressive Network sent letters to the campaigns questioning the reliability of paperless electronic voting systems. "Many of the world's best computer scientists have concluded that paperless e-voting systems are vulnerable to error and fraud," said Brett Bursey, director of the South Carolina Progressive Network. The Ohio Report notes that the machines use third-party software, including Windows, in their voting machines. "These third-party systems are used under the (possibly incorrect) assumption that they are secure." This report says "such trust is unwarranted for security conscious applications." Hare suggests having touch-screen machines set up to print out paper ballots that can be read by a precinct-based optical scan machine. Paper ballots penciled in by voters are another option, she said, because paper ballots can be used for a recount. link

Not having a verifiable paper trail in the election process is about as stupid as it gets. If the American people allow this to continue, our election process will no longer have any credibility.
_________________

"Linux is more than an OS, it's a state of mind."

I agree 100% GW. It has little worth to its reputation already.

It concerns me to no end that a group called "Progressive Network" would be dictating rather a voting system is secure or not. Paper ballots are far more vulnerable that electronic voting. Any system will be subject to corruption when you have corrupt people running it.
_________________
You can't hold a liberal responsible for their words because it's character assassination.

Moon Puppy wrote:

It concerns me to no end that a group called "Progressive Network" would be dictating rather a voting system is secure or not. Paper ballots are far more vulnerable that electronic voting. Any system will be subject to corruption when you have corrupt people running it.

Oh, "whether". I got you now.

Well, they are both corruptable, but with paper, you can recount them, providing they haven't been lost off the back of a truck. Electronically, I suppose you could contact each voter and ask them to confirm that the electronic signal registered is who they really wanted to vote for.

nonlemming wrote:

Well, they are both corruptable, but with paper, you can recount them, providing they haven't been lost off the back of a truck.

Exactly, and that is the major concern I have. E-voting machines are easily hacked as well so there is a huge potential for fraud without a backup paper trail. That would be a nightmare and it would be near impossible to audit after the fact.
_________________

"Linux is more than an OS, it's a state of mind."

Gadget Wizard wrote:

nonlemming wrote: Well, they are both corruptable, but with paper, you can recount them, providing they haven't been lost off the back of a truck. Exactly, and that is the major concern I have. E-voting machines are easily hacked as well so there is a huge potential for fraud without a backup paper trail. That would be a nightmare and it would be near impossible to audit after the fact.

I have to concur with that assessment.

(I agree)

nonlemming wrote:

Moon Puppy wrote: It concerns me to no end that a group called "Progressive Network" would be dictating rather a voting system is secure or not. Paper ballots are far more vulnerable that electronic voting. Any system will be subject to corruption when you have corrupt people running it. Oh, "whether". I got you now. Well, they are both corruptable, but with paper, you can recount them, providing they haven't been lost off the back of a truck. Electronically, I suppose you could contact each voter and ask them to confirm that the electronic signal registered is who they really wanted to vote for.

Yes they both may be "corruptible" but are they both corrupt? That's why you have checks and balances. You seem to think somehow that paper is fool proof. It's not, especially when you have percents that end up with more votes than voters.

What steps would need to be taking to remove the corruption?
_________________
You can't hold a liberal responsible for their words because it's character assassination.