Kaptur Defeats Kucinich 94% to 4% on 100% Unverifiable E-Vote Systems in Toledo, OH?

[joshcryer]

89. I have established that the information is wrong. It is not 100% unverifiable.

I have explained why it is not 100% unverifiable. Because of the paper trail audit that is mandated by Ohio law, the candidates can call for a recount (Kucinich already conceeded, so that won't happen) or they can file for a Freedom of Information Act request and ask for the paper trail, which under a recount is considered equivalent of a paper ballot.

I know quite enough about this issue. If it was a regular DRE voting machine I would've rec'd the OP and said nothing or maybe said "damn" but because there is a paper trail like in Venezuela, it became apparent to me that this was pure misinformation. Maybe the OP didn't actually look at the details, maybe the OP thinks paper trail voting machines are a bad idea, etc, but they're a heck of a sight better than DRE voting machines which have zero paper trail!

It was, entirely, bullshit, and it continues to be, because no evidence is provided that the overall process is not "100% unverifiable."

Note: unverifiable as far as the vote is concerned, but you can verify if the vote is accurate. All it takes is an audit, which anyone can do under FOIA. The paper trail is maintained under Ohio law, it has to be, if the pollsters destroyed the rolls, then I would be the first person to condemn it, since that is illegal under Ohio law. I champion this sort of electronic voting mechanism, because 1) it allows people to quickly make their vote and 2) doesn't result in "chads" or other processes which illegitimatize the vote (it's impossible to tell whether a "hanging chad" is a real vote or not, but it's not impossible to tell whether a voter verified vote is a vote or not).

I've voted in Colorado on these sorts of machines, I was instructed, by the poll workers, to look at the printed out vote and make sure that it was what I intended. Every single person is given those instructions. The studies about people "not reading the printout" are bogus because the people are not instructed, in those studies, to read out the printout. If instructed to do so people will read out the printout. They were just seeing if people would read the printout without instruction, and for me this is uncontroversial because people tend to not do things that they're not instructed to do, and those studies resulted in better polling place behavior. Had they been allowed to remove the printed ballot as in Venezuela and put it in a box, and were compelled to dip their fingers in ink, the systems would be identical. What got Chavez elected twice should be good enough for us, no?

I did not call any other posters liars, I called them dishonest, because the methods used in the rhetoric were certainly not honest. It would've been easy enough to admit that they were wrong, that indeed, there is verifiability in the vote (after all of the facts that I provided), but they refuse to do so. So be it. I do not retract those statements. The accuracy of the vote is verifiable. Granted, it would result in voter invalidation because at least in two cases (where votes were made but canceled, and where votes were made when no votes were really made) it is impossible to distinguish valid votes from invalid votes. That is absolutely unfortunate, but it a small price to pay for more people being able to vote in a given time period for less money.

I frankly would prefer an all-paper ballot system, but we live in the electronic age and that becomes a difficult argument, and I don't expect to do it that way. I think Venezuela represents the ideal system, in the end. The ballot is printed out, and you take it and put it in a ballot box. You count the digital votes and you count the paper votes and if they don't match things are questionable.

Ballot stuffing is possible with pure paper ballots, hacking machines is likewise possible. All I see here, however, is a conspiracy that doesn't represent the reality. I am fully open to other evidence, but frankly I do not take kindly to non-evidence based arguments, arguments that rely on innuendo and fear to be able to be pushed.

This works me up because I encounter these kinds of arguments from climate change denialists and anti-evolution people, the arguments are based on innuendo, fabrications, and outright misrepresentations of the information available.

BTW, I suspect I'll be locked out of this thread for things I've said, but I stand by them wholeheartedly, as I do not think I have said or done anything wrong. I have provided the evidence, the OP, however, has not, and in fact has fabricated and manipulated the evidence hoping people would not seek out whether or not the evidence reflected the rhetoric. It doesn't.