Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
The possibility for corruption does not mean corruption. Not every cop is on the take, not every judge can be bought, not every politican is crooked.
|
True. But some are.
It does not require large numbers of people to cause large amounts of vote fraud with poorly designed electronic voting systems.
Poorly designed electronic voting systems where widely used in the last election.
Quote:
|
Part of the faith comes due to the ineffeciency of the system. It requires so many people to be involved that it would require a great deal of people to corrupt to really change anything but a very close election. I am not going to claim the sky is falling when it most clearly is not.
|
Thus you faith is wrong.
How many unaccounted electronic votes where there? Not ones that you can prove are corrupt -- but ones someone could have easily corrupted.
Edit: added "easily" -- as in, could corrupt en-mass
Suppose we had a system in which any judge could free any prisoner based off secret evidence presented to the judge -- but you didn't know which judge it was that did the freeing.
We don't know that there would be corruption under this system. But having any faith that there would be no corruption is irrational.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Which is why I am against the current models of electronic voting.
|
The current models of electronic voting decided the 2004 election. If they are crap, then so was the election.
If you believe that no-paper trail, centralized, easily corrupted electronic voting is something you should have faith in, then the 2004 election was a good election. If you believe that no-paper trail, centralized, easily corrupted electronic voting makes a mockery of democracy, then the 2004 was a mockery of democracy.
It matters not who the people voted for. It matters who and how the votes where counted. A large chunk of the votes where counted by unaudited, insecure, easily corrupted computer systems. As such, a large chunk of the votes have no moral weight.
I'm pretty certain that Bush got more than 40% of the vote. I'm pretty certain that Kerry got more than 40% of the vote.
Quote:
|
The ironic thing to me is the same people who were complaining about the 2000 election issues and pushing for electronic systems, now seem to be the same ones complaining about the electronic systems.
|
Please cite a single person -- ideally someone of some providence, but I'd take any poster on this board -- who, in the aftermath of the 2000 election, advocated electronic voting, and are now complaining about electronic systems.
They may exist. But you seem to know of them. I'm wondering if this is just the usual "us vs them" cognative issue human beings have, where you attribute negative things to people you dislike or disagree with.