Judged:
1
Amazarak wrote:
I agree Lucy. There has to be more oversight, and IMO the machines have to go, or get someone who does not work for the company to oversee operations, or to even look inside into its makeup. No one is allowed to do that. And that should set off red flags, but it doesn't to the majority of the people. I do not wish my government to be fraudulent, but it is hard to believe they are not when the out polls are so off and no one is allowed to look into the voting machines. And they DO go both ways, unfortunately.
They need to follow a very basic accounting principle. There must be a verifiable paper trail or something else that would withstand a thorough audit. At the same time, though, there must be enough of a gap in the system so that we can maintain the sanctity of the "secret ballot."
Having worked as an elections inspector in past years, I still like the old-style mechanical-based voting machines. There was a reasonable auditing system in place, one that matched counters on the side of the machine and the voter log book. The biggest problem that those voting machines had was that they would age and have mechanical difficulties. Localities looked at the amount of money that repairing them would cost them, and then got "wowed" by the touch screens and other bells-and-whistles, and ended up getting sucked into buying unproven and relatively untested technology.
"I am The EggMan, and I approved this message."