I'm willing to bet a court challenge to the widespread "wholesale" election theft (now common with the use of paperless electronic voting) would not be met with the degree of concern that the single recorded instance of "retail" vote fraud cited in the case elicited from our Federalist Society Supreme Court.

Republicans have depended on "wholesale" election theft since 2000 to maintain their grip on the levers of power. For Federalist Society judges, it's all about whose Gore is being oxed.

JackHughes:

I'm willing to bet a court challenge to the widespread "wholesale" election theft (now common with the use of paperless electronic voting) would not be met with the degree of concern that the single recorded instance of "retail" vote fraud cited in the case elicited from our Federalist Society Supreme Court.

Republicans have depended on "wholesale" election theft since 2000 to maintain their grip on the levers of power. For Federalist Society judges, it's all about whose Gore is being oxed.

You can't seriously beleive that electronic voting does anything but ensure accuracy. Your post is a joke right?

Actually Pete those machines you claim are so accurrate have never been shown to be so and in fact have had errors from the start. They also were INTENTIONALLY designed without the ability to generate paper results for future checks against it. Do a little work with Google and you will find ample proof that the machines are hardly the panacea you describe. In fact, they have even been hacked from outside successfully in their own damn tests!

Now I know it is a joke!

The joke's on you, Pete.

Those electronic voting machines' computer code is considered a "trade secret" and as such cannot be examined by independent groups or even the states that purchase them.

Independent experts have proved that they are designed to be easily hackable.

You might wonder why exit polling is accurate in precincts using paper ballots, but wildly variable in paperless voting precincts.

Check out the ongoing drama of the 2004 Alaska results, where the county-by-county results don't match the state totals. Alaska Democrats are still trying to get the raw computer data to analyze the results, but are getting the stonewall from the machines' manufacturer and Alaska Republicans (what are they trying to hide?).

Same for Ohio in 2004, Georgia and Missisippi in 2002, etc, etc.

In foreign countries, when exit polling varies from the official results, there's rioting in the streets. In today's America, they simply adjust the exit polling to match the "official" results.

America ceased being a functioning democracy in 2000. Still laughing, Pete?

machines are easily hackable (and maybe they are, I dunno), why the assumption that it's only (or mainly) Republicans that would stoop to perpetrating fraud? Is your worldview so naively Manichean that you can't imagine a Democrat's doing the same thing? I know you're still smarting over 2000, but that was a paper ballot snafu.

The CEOs of companies that manufacture electronic voting machines are Republicans, and some, such as Diebold's, are on record as declaring they would do everything they could to deliver the election (in 2004) to George W. Bush.

Furthermore, it's the Republicans who have been blocking every attempt to modiy the machines to provide paper trails -- most recently last week on Rush Holt's bill that would have provided emergency funding to any state that would make the modifications in time for the 2008 elections.

I ask you: why would anyone oppose such a measure without a vested interest in un-auditable outcomes?

It's naive to blindly insist that "coincidences" that consistently favor only one party are coincidences. How much evidence do you need before you'll label it for what it is: conspiracy.

Democrats dont mind an exact count-after all we're the ones getting lots of votes from huge minority families, dead people, and illegal aliens right Pete? So we shoulnt need to hack the computer and change the results-we get votes from all our illegals-you know the type Pete-always sneaking out to vote for Democrats during their 12-15 hour work days for sub minimum wage for Republicans who happily let them skip work to vote for dems.

A simple question Pete-WHY CANT WE INSIST ON A PAPER TRAIL? Why must we "trust" the computer to be right? Ask the SJC why no recount in 2000 (a fair request even if the win wasnt close).

Republicanse seem excessively concerned with mere examination of results. Why?

During the last election, we used electronic voting machines that kept a paper "receipt" of who you voted for behind a plastic shield. The last step of the voting process involved verifying the paper "receipt" matched who you selected on screen.

I think this is a pretty decent compromise. I think this system is preferable to the old ca. 1920 lever machines we used to use. It was definitely better than how I used to absentee vote; by overlaying a piece of paper (with names) on a punchcard (backed with foam) and pushing a stretched out paperclip through each hole.

I would be quite happy with that concept too so long as the paper was saved to confirm final results if asked.

At present, we are asked to trust that the machine is being accurrate. Hardly what I call a compromise when they say we can ask the machine if the numbers are correct so it can varify its own result.