Election machines


Fighting the Democrat and Republican onslought
Before the nonsense about the "stolen 2006 election" surfaces, I'd like to remind people about some things.

The lawsuit that put the national elections in the hands of the courts (Gore v. Bush) was filed by a Democrat.

While the CEO of Diebold in 2004 was indeed a Republican, the Senior VP and Treasurer were Democrats.

The push for (easily manipulated) electronic voting came mainly from Democrats.

The push for "campaign finance reform" came from 8 liberal foundations that concealed that fact from Congress until after the President had signed the bill.

If the last couple of elections had gone the Democrat's way, I do not think we would be hearing about the "flawed voting machines."

The Diebold machines themselves were produced for least cost, not for reliability.

While we are on the subject, let's look at one possible method to increase the reliability of the machines.

First borrow a page from the early days of NASA and put in redundancy. Put three independent computers with three different programs/operating systems in the same housing. One would run the fancy graphics and upload to the State office, one just tallies results and transmits to the city/county, and one prints results for the voter to take and another "tape" that is tallied at the precinct level. The election isn't certified until at least two of the three results match.

No voting machine should have the ability to upload software from off the shelf parts. If necessary, the chips should be crippled or manufactured without the ability to interface.

I'm not sure that these simple ideas would make the elections any more accurate, but they would remove questions.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Wed - October 25, 2006 at 07:33 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved