Quick Study: Voting Machines

If it ain't broke---why is it so important to fix it? You enter the voting place. Your voter ID is checked. Then, instead of using a confusing machine and you just keep hitting anything that will let the curtain open and let you out and you don't know if you voted or for whom--- What if the ID checker just handed you a little card or object? You drop it into the slot on top of the box with your candidates name on it. Then, a counting machine can count the number of objects in each box.

To the extent that one issue may be speed --everybody would like to hear the outcome of each election before they go to bed on election night-- I for one would not mind waiting a bit. If an accurate, tamper-proof vote-tallying sustem that the public would have confidence in, somehow required a few days to be completed, I would be willing to wait a few days to learn the outcome.

I just want my vote to count! I could care less if its computerized or if its on paper.

There is no possible way that we can expect public acceptance of a voting system that does NOT have a hard copy paper trail of each and every vote cast OR who's tally is not hand verified in a random sample audit. In the same vein as was critical in the OJ trial, " If the vote can't be verified - and tested, it should not count."

"Apoplectic champions of e-voting"? Would one of those be Bill O'Lielly, to whom "apoplectic" seems exceptionally appropriate? It is no coincidence that the designers of this substandard equipment, and their apologists, are Republicans, form whom the unimpeded free election process would guarantee their almost universal defeat.

Quality

This is to test

This is to test the quality