On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Chris Lusena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry for the fast send. (darn laptop keeps done phantom mouse clicks when I > type. :-) > > I meant to say then three machines where: > > 1. A voting/ballot machine that printed who you voted for in plain text and > in a bar code format on one side. (you could then place your ballot in a > spiecal > holder that only exposed the bar code. > > 2. A code reader than then read the encoding of the bar code to you. > > 3. a machine that you placed your ballot into that then counted the votes. > > The whole point of the system was that since all three machine where simple an > open spec. you could acquire them from different vendor and check the results > by what they print. > > This system is comple ignored since it was proven that they where far to cheep > to make.
I don't trust any of these machines. Have you guys not watched any of the videos about the kind of fraud that happened in the american elections? When you let machines into the equation then you are begging for trouble. Even if the software is trustworthy, how can you trust the people who are there to certify that the machines have the correct software in them? I barely trust humans that are appointed to count the votes, but I trust people and the process more than getting voting machines. Bottom line is that, just like anything in computer security its not the software/hardware its the whole process. With what is going on with stolen elections in the USA (and does anyone on this list really think that Stelmach (sp?) really won a greater majority than he had before the election?) we need to be vigilant about guarding our democracy. _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
