One thing I do know is Florida fixed there's. They pretty much had to though after the embarrassment.

with your ballot and can make a copy if you want to. Elections are run by the various States and that is where people should seek to return to more transparent and verifiable voting systems.

I hear this a lot, and I'm not sure what isn't understood. They're using centrally located scanners to count that paper ballot.

A hand-filled paper ballot is a very important step. But there are others.

Paper ballots, hand counted at the precinct level with a webcam watching. Results posted on the door, also with a webcam watching, before the ballot box leaves.

There.

to make sure it matches the county report which matched the precinct report so what i posted @ #2 doesn't happen

but yes transparency is the key

Not that "bring it into the 21st century crap, which means electronic rig able voting.

The only reason they have for electronic voting is fast results...and we don't need results that fast.

That HAVA was a scam to foist these paperless wonders upon us.

we need accurate,transparent results

If we have to go to bed on election night not knowing it is no big deal.

I'm open to optical scans with audits. But they have to be serious. And most are not. Many you would want to do you can't even get legal permission to perform.

Wilms
You actually got Bernie & Elizabeth to sign your postings
Damn, you are good
All I get are death threats

“ it's time to bring our voting machines into the 21st century."

Oh, no, it's time to bring the voting machines into MUSEUMS because they are too easily pre-programmed and manipulated.

My brother does high tech stuff for DoD, and he told me in 2002, "give me a cellphone and a laptop, and I'll make any of those machines give you any result you want." And if he could do that, so could any number of others, and it's more than 99.99999% certain that they did. That precinct in Ohio that gave Bush 3000 votes in a precinct with 600 registered voters was not an exception. It was the rule.

He should read this
I've got no problem whatsoever going toe to toe with him on this
He owes the Progressive World on explanation for his email

We are both at the moment on the same floor of the same hotel, and I laid out for him my complete line of objections to the electronic voting machines, including what my brother said. He listened to every word. He really is a great guy, and very open-minded. Most people don't react favorably to indirect anonymous blog demands or statements of what they owe whom, but you are most welcome to repeat your version of what I just said to him on the Left Action site.

I tried very hard to present my position and critique in a respectful manner
hoping to elicit a thoughtful response
I was also trying to convey what I learned
I was not interested in slamming him or the others,
my intention was to get them to re-evaluate what they sent out
I hope that it works
Trust me, I write some really offensive stuff, but this piece was not meant to be offensive
Plus, I got you to speak to him, which is great
Doing this work, it is best not to burn bridges with people one shares the same philosophy with

Here is what I thing voting machines should do.

Electronic voting with a paper receipt that the voter checks for accuracy then deposits in a separate secure ballot box. The paper ballots will be kept secure and tallied by hand for any election result that is questionable. There should also probably be random hand tallies regardless of whether the electronic results seem questionable.

It is absolutely despicable that this country does not have clean voting processes!!!!!

Obviously we have a lot of power freaks who do not believe in democracy.

But its not the answer, IMO. There is still much room for mischief in the initial digital count, creating an environment where voters are burdened with double-checking the output the moment before they drop the ballot in the box. It also pushes the process toward contentious call for recounts.

It is much better to have a manually-marked ballot that either a poll worker or a computer or scanner can read.

Black Box Voting -- It is also usually meant to denote computerized voting. This term arose in tech circles (and places like DU) after the fiascoes of 2000 and 2004, and a lot of research and dialog has occurred on the topic of BBV.

The thing is, a lot of "electronic voting" has a stellar record. Relatively simple optical scanning machines can read paper ballots with high reliability and both the ballots (paper) and the machines are far easier audit than computers.

The difference is boiled down to this:

1) Modern computers never developed advanced security mechanisms, and

2) Computers are designed to streamline and hide operational details from consumers; 99% of what goes on inside is invisible and difficult to audit even for experts. This raises the bar of expertise for a proper audit to extremely high levels.... nothing like what would be required in a manual count or a much simpler counting machine.

Now, computers process high-stakes transactions all the time (sometimes in perilously insecure ways)... but outside of the new application to voting, those transactions are NEVER ANONYMOUS as votes must be. There are no "Voting Statements" that people can check after the fact, and rightly so.

So, for now, computers are largely incompatible with high-stakes anonymous transactions.

But other systems that involve actual paper ballots are still valid, even if they use some electronics.

These systems are controlled and operated by Political operatives who can and will do anything they so desire.
No matter what they do, no matter how egregious, blatant and outrageous their actions, they get away with it.
America had a useless Attorney General, Eric Holder, who did not do anything.
In 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States suspended the American vote count and overrode our elections
Voter suppression in every way imaginable is today the norm, not the exception in America.
The Secretaries of State in various states do whatever they want to manipulate the vote.
They make their systems on line, they use out of state privately run computers to tabulate the vote count.

Essentially using computerized voting systems as a contracted service run by private corporations.

We should not allow the vote to be privatized.

Another thing we can thank HAVA for.

Say since this thread is still active, anyone interested in reviving ER daily news?

Needless to say, I'd be overjoyed to take a day. I think it helped keep things on the front burner and from time to time brought out some overlooked items.

Donny Doofus here
reporting in

Activists from all over the country read & posted here and exchanged ideas & experiences
We formed our Activist group, California Election Protection Network from DU

Alas, I cannot contribute on your ER group as a moderator
And
Susan
thanks for clarifying that for me