According to VerifiedVoting.org, 3,013 voting jurisdictions out of 4,698 used optical scan.

Wilms

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Nov-23-08 05:33 PM
Original message

According to VerifiedVoting.org, 3,013 voting jurisdictions out of 4,698 used optical scan.

FYI...

http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6664

Refresh | +2 Recommendations

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

BlooInBloo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Nov-23-08 05:40 PM
Response to Original message

1. That's not possible because that would mean that the "we're doomed" contingent was 100% wrong...

And thus they, being completely honorable and in no way craven, would have come out and admitted as much - which hasn't happened.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

truckin

(500 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-24-08 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #1

2. The key question is how many of the 3,013 voting jurisdictions

are subject to audits where the paper ballots are hand counted to verify the accuracy of the machines. The answer is not many of them. And anyone who has spent considerable time on this board knows that optical scan is little better than paperless DREs if there are no audits where a sample of paper ballots are hand counted and compared to the scanner results.

Another way to look at this is that over 30 million voters cast vote on paperless touchscreen voting machines. There is no justification for this crime.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Wilms

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-24-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #2

3. .

:applause:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Bill Bored

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-24-08 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #2

4. How about calculating the number of unaudited jurisdictions?

Edited on Mon Nov-24-08 03:46 PM by Bill Bored

It would be even better to calculate the number that are not "significantly" audited, or risk-limiting audited. This will vary from election to election because some audits just happen to be enough for some elections, like in CT and CA.

We do know this however:

The number of jurisdictions that have implemented risk-limiting audits (audits specifically designed to detect and correct wrong electoral outcomes) is ZERO.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

eridani

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Dec-01-08 04:46 AM
Response to Reply #2

6. Indeed. Insttuting mandatory auditing is the single most important thing you can do

--at the state level to promote election integrity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Bill Bored

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-24-08 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #1

5. Why don't you think we're doomed with optical scanners?

They count votes by computer just like the touch screens do.

The fact that there's a paper ballot is just window dressing, although it does address certain reliability and usability problems that DREs have, and provides some POTENTIAL to correct wrong election results or to deter some kinds of fraud, while enabling others.

Florida, for example, has scrupulously avoided the use of paper ballots to confirm election results reported by computers, and they're not alone.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sun May 05th 2024, 05:22 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.