Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
Look, Lebell, I'm not trying to go rounds with numbers this or numbers that, yada, yada, etc.
My concern is allowing private corporations to control the source code of electronic voting machines without a paper trail. Paper trail or not, the source needs to be open and secure (under the hood and physically).
I certainly hope we agree that it doesn't make sense to have private corporations to control our public election results--regardless of which party makes the machines or has a vested interest in the outcome.
That's what I think this article is trying to articulate. I find evidence in the fact that the author doesn't dispute the overall results of the election--that Bush won.
|
As a former auditor, I completely agree that the system needs to be fully transparent and that an audit trail needs to be present.
Edit to add:
But Smooth, my statement was that that people over at DU are arguing for fraud and your reply was that you didn't see such arguments. As an example, you pulled ONE post.
First, it seems clear to me what the author is trying to say; that the numbers are inconsistant and indicate fraud. You say different. So be it.
But as for DU'ers NOT alleging fraud, I point out these threads:
http://www.democraticunderground.com...esg_id=1349610
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x1351409
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x1351218
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x1343460 (buried as responses)
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x1346797
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x1349377
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x1349803
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x1350646
http://www.democraticunderground.com...topic_id=1984#
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=132x1350563
And on and on...
What I can't figure out is why didn't you see these. They are all on the first few pages. Did you even look?