http://www.lewrockwell.com/bovard/bovard30.html
The Fraudulent Meaning of Elections
by James Bovard
***Begin Quote***
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Cal.) complained that many states used “more sophisticated technology” for lottery tickets than for elections:
<Quoting Waters> Incredibly even in those few jurisdictions that have moved to electronic voting … we do not require a verifiable paper trail to protect against vote tampering. If an ATM machine can give each user a receipt that that user can rely upon, then a voting machine should also be able to give a receipt.
***End Quote***
Now I’m no fan of any politician, but it seems obvious to me.
(1) The voting machine (a computer, whose pedigree and programming is unknown, thus deemed insecure) needs to produce a paper record that the voter can verify.
(2) We don’t want people to be able to “prove” to the ward heeler outside the poll that they voted for the “right” candidate and paid for their vote. So that peice of paper needs to be “cast” into a ballot box as the official record of the voter’s intention.
(3) Recounts could then be done if the machine tally is suspect. (Since it’s basically an ATM receipt, it MUST be printed on non-thermal paper.) Recounts of the official box should match the machine totals.
Seems obvious to me, but what do I know!
Posted by reinkefj 







