>It is not to record who voted for what, but being able to go back and recount.
I understand that. > >You can't do that. Were we ever able to do that with automated voting machines? > >There is no way to verify that the totals add up and are correct. Again, were we ever able to do that with automation? Florida's case I understand, but how many states used such a system. Louisiana didn't as long as I have been voting (21 years). The machines they used when I started voting were 50+ years old. That is why the political jokes involved the dead coming to life to vote for Huey Long. > >If you suspect your precinct had a wrong vote or count or tally, you >cannot challenge it. The best you can do is to get all those votes >thrown out (and disenfranchise all of those voters - which will >probably become a new tactic in close races). But in Lousiana that was always the case, as I remember it. Has it been different elsewhere besides Florida? I still can not see where this will make a difference. If a machine come preloaded with votes or is post loaded, the paper trail will still be there, but just not be accurate. > > > >On 10/30/06, Russel Madere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:218657 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
