[PAA-Discuss] Verifiable Voting: Boston Globe editorial

[Art Browning]

Exactly. Give me a piece of paper and a pencil and I can write down who 
I want to vote for. And you can watch me, and write down who I voted 
for. DAMMIT!

We should be allowed to be proud of our votes!

ART

Miklhut at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/19/2006 9:31:27 PM Central Standard Time, 
> abrowning at pdq.net writes:
>
>     yet six years after the
>     infamous botched election of 2000, vote counters in Florida and
>     elsewhere still can't seem to get it right.
>
> My feeling:  They don't WANT to get it right.  It is not an accident.  
> I am for sticking to paper ballots.  There was enough voter fraud even 
> when we had that.  I remember (dating myself) during the Johnson 
> elections in Texas there were many doubts and accusations of voter 
> fraud and ballot box pilfering.  Of course there have been accusations 
> since then but that sticks in my mind for some reason.
>  
> Truth be known there is NO safety in computers.  Banks lose millions, 
> people hack credit card companies and get into millions of accounts, 
> state drivers licenses, even the Pentagon gets hacked.  Nasa is 
> constantly getting hacked.  Safety online is a joke.  People worry 
> about getting their ID stolen, just Google yourself sometime.  It's 
> ajoke.  We are ALL public information now if you use a computer. This 
> is just another area where no one tells the truth about the billions 
> lost nationally that we all pay for.  Do I want to give up my 
> computer? NO.  But I damn sure do not want my vote entered into a 
> computer.  Technology is great but no one has invented a program that 
> can't be hacked.  Just ask any fifteen year old kid, they hack the 
> Pentagon all the time.  My Grandson even did it.  He and his friends 
> used to bring their lap tops over here and see who could hack the most 
> companies in two hours.  There just wasn't much they could not get 
> into.  Stick to what can at least be accounted for, I say.  When you 
> can design a program that will change the votes, then destroy itself 
> and not be detected there's just no safety in it at all, and that is 
> probably a simplistic program compared to what they can really do.
>  
> Mikal