See, when I think election fraud, I am thinking Diebold. The right wing got its knicks all in a twist here over the fact that a hundred some people registered from the same address here... come to find out, that address was a day shelter for street people, who should, I think, be able to vote if they choose.
Now the people who are upset by this are never going to allow online voting -- too hard to determine the color of someone's skin. It would do away with challenging Hispanics, blacks and Native Americans, and they aren't going to stand for that. Personally, I'd be in favor IF, and it is a big if, there is transparency in the system. Otherwise it's just more black box voting. Dana >As I have stated before, there are no objective references. Let's use >mainstream references as a substitute. There is no serious debate in the >mainstream media about whether the 2004 election was stolen. The BS piece by >RFK, Jr. doesn't count. > >Realistically, how can you keep people from breaking the law? You can't with >100% certainty, you can only put a structure in place to make it difficult, >monitor the process, and punish the transgressors. Moreover, these systems >are in place on a state by state basis, because that is how our government >works. > >Take Maryland, for instance. It is a heavily Democratic state where the >legislature has just enacted a law that says 1. people do not have to >provide id at a polling place in order to vote (on the notion that poor >people might not have id) and 2. you can vote at any polling place, not only >your registered polling place. So the system they have enacted is, in short, >an open invitation to voter fraud. > >My preference would be for some sort of online voting system that would >enable the average voter to totally bypass polling places and the partisan >party systems that control them. There are certainly difficult challenges in >fraud prevention with an online system, but if banks and credit card >companies can run their businesses online, certainly we can run elections >online. Some provision would need to be made for people without computers >(library access, etc.). I am not suggesting the system would be foolproof, >but it could hardly be worse than the current system, and it would have the >added benefits of convenience and direct participation in circumvention of >the established parties. > >On 6/14/06, Dana wrote: > >-- >--------------- >Robert Munn >www.funkymojo.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209338 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
