Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["H. Wade Minter" <minter AT lunenburg.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Thomas Beckett wrote:

> Rachel Cox wrote:
> > Yeah, I'm not very excited about electronic voting at this point
> > myself. I'm eager for the time when I can be, but right now there are
> > just too many questions for me to be comfortable with it.
>
> Well in North Carolina at least, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  The
> paper ballot and optical reader system we now use (in Orange, Durham and
> Wake at least) works great, and there's a physical ballot and audit
> trail.  The ballot itself is simple and easy to understand.  I have even
> witnessed a local election recount on behalf of the Democratic Party and
> I think the system works well.  I would be extremely suspicious of any
> effort to replace this system with anything else.

The big problem as I see it is that the big voting companies like Diebold
are absolutely opposed to, and fighting tooth-and-nail to stop, any sort
of audit trail for their computers.  They want zero paper trail for their
voting.

Why on earth would anyone who wants fair elections be so opposed to having
a paper audit trail?  That's what gets my suspicions up about e-voting.
They want to take an unproven system and remove any sort of non-electronic
accountability.

Sketchy at best.

- --Wade
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAUdE5o4DwsyRGDscRAkwFAJ9/fkqGtdJL8P1ueZW3J3ghaYKEPwCfTOaC
1arJnl6epXs1oaRzIM/pY+A=
=ENCS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----