Tim, I share your skepticism about the benefits of computer-based voting. However, technology does not equal computer voting. How about the car? Or radio/tv transmission? These things didn't exist when the process was created, but they have decidedly improved the ability for people to get to the polling places and for the information about the results to be conveyed. Sure beats sending a messenger on a horse.
And then there are all the various ballot counting machines that have been used for years and years. Whether that's the mechanical lever that punches card or a "scantron" pen mark reader, they are used effectively now to facilitate the counting process. These are also forms of technology that don't involve touch screens and networked computers. We can use 50 year old technology and still do away with all the time barriers that necessitated the Electoral College. -Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 10:59 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Not anti-suv but.... [snip] > Now as to why I would election fraud more than currently if we switched to > computer based voting systems, well I think that's pretty basic. I mean > internet voting would be open to so many different forms of > attack it's not > funny. So you would have all the existing tricks (same guy > multiple votes, > dead people voting, people registered to vote in more than one district or > state) plus all the fun hack and crack stuff we all deal with as > developers. > Additionally there are already questions being asked about the firms that > supplied the new electronic voting systems to several states in the mid > west. A republican one an election he was supposed to loose by a > lot. The > big deal there is that he is one of the owners of the companies that > provided the voting systems. So I guess that is a fear also. I > mean there > are so many ways that you are adding additional risks by using an > electronic > voting system over a manual ballot system where you have a physical ballot > to look at. Not perfect by any means. Still better IMHO. > > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:37 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Not anti-suv but.... > > > how is going to a democratic system worse? > > Instead of having to win the majority of votes in a state to get all > electoral votes for the state (Because they are not PARTIAL) then you just > have to win the majority of votes for the country. > > How can having it different have worse fraud then now. Say we had 5000 > fraudulent bush votes in florida in 2000, well bush won by fraud. > If we had 2000 fraudulent bush votes in a NON electoral system gore would > still have won. > > (Don't bring up the whole bush gore thing it was just an example :P) > > Just not getting it elighten me oh centerist one! > > > "When I came back from Korea, I had no money, no skills. Sure, I was good > with a bayonet, but you can't put that on a resume - it puts peple off!" > Frank Barone, "Everybody Loves Raymond" > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:14 AM > Subject: RE: Not anti-suv but.... > > > Good luck. it would take a constitutional amendment, and those don't come > easy. > > Now when you talk about the technological possibilities I get > super scared. > There is just way to much of a chance at fraud and misuse. > > Also as a republic and NOT a democracy things were never supposed > to be one > man one vote, it's supposed to be a representative form of government. > > I know there are definitely improvements that need to be made, I mean hell > it is over 200 years old, but I still think the US constitution > is about the > best around :) > > Tim > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:01 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Not anti-suv but.... > > > yes i know people say well i get my 4 electoral votes instead of > just a flat > population vote. > And then thats because of keeping it honest and then you say ok how come > california has like what 30 or something way more then 4 ;). > > I agree its a stupid an antiquated system which should be done > away with but > i doubt they will get rid of it > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jim Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 10:54 AM > Subject: RE: Not anti-suv but.... > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bill Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 7:31 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Not anti-suv but.... > > > > > > Nah if you get rid of the electoral college all the people > > who live in rural states will cry that their vote is not > > being counted anymore and they don't mean anything to > > politics and the big city folk run everything. > > The electorial college does very little to "balance" population vrs > statehood as it is. More populus states already get a huge margin. > That issue is addressed very well in the Senate, I think. > > As I rememember it the main reason for the college was not to ensure a > bigger voice for smaller states but rather to ensure a speedy election > (delegates would need days or weeks to travel to make the election). > That's no longer the case. > > While I'm all all for abolishing state government or hindering civic > pride in one's state a simpler "one person, one vote" rule for national > office seems the simplest way to deal with things - especially now that > technology has caught up with the needs of the process. > > Jim Davis > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89 70.5
