Reply #19: Re: Double-entry accounting

[Mithras61]

That would certainly explain why changes to one database were NOT reflected in the other...</sarcasm>

In repeated tests, the changes made to the database that was actually read from to obtain the results were neither recorded in logs nor reported in the other database.

Paper ballots are designed to give a fail-safe to electronic balloting. The electronic methods are almost certainly safe, but I still want to see a ballot with my votes recorded in people readable format. That way when all else fails I can get a real, manual recount of the ballots in a public forum with independant observers. With the purely electronic format you so ardently support, this is NOT possible.

edited to add:

As for the disenfranchised actually getting to vote, some 120,000 voters were denied the right to even cast (or attempt to cast) a ballot in the 2000 elections. It is estimated that 80% of these would have been democratic voters. Your e-voting wouldn't have helped them in any way.

Further, the disenfranchisement was a function of the actions of the SCOTUS in stopping the LEGAL AND MANDATORY state-wide recount, not the voting methods, because the FL Supreme Court did order a state-wide recount, that several independant organizations have performed with Gore winning by wide margins in all scenarios except the one Gore himself asked for, in which the votes were only retallied in a few counties. The reason Gore's scenario was rejected by the FL Supreme Court is, interstingly enough, the same reason that the SCOTUS claimed to be the reason for stopping it... that it would treat voters in different precincts differently, which was specifically prohibited by FL and US law...