My tweets

[lsanderson]

• Sat, 16:42: Brunch at The Rookery with Andrea and Sam http://t.co/ky069i423y
• Sun, 06:47: RT @mritchie: Paper is Still the Tech of Choice for Elections http://t.co/9nCKAulBta @mritchie @US_Innovations #minnesota #innovation
• Sun, 06:47: RT @nytimesscience: Texas Health Worker Tests Positive for Ebola http://t.co/nvZnQJQOrv

Comments

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, I think it's quite clear that digital/electronic voting can quite easily be fraudulenently manipulated. As Lenin (or Stalin, or whoever) put it, "who votes is immaterial: whate matters is who counts the votes" ... and who reports the results, I might add. We can be pretty sure that an electronic system can be manipulated: the only rally democratic/accurate system I know of is the marking of paper ballots and counting them (using indivicuals of at least three parties) by hand. This may not please the 8-o'clock-news people, but it's the only dependably _honest_ way to do it.

We hear a lot about "election fraud" involving people or register illegally. This seems to work out to something like four to ten people per year, in the entire United States. Miscounting of votes by electronic machines manufactured by companies owned by people who promised that that the repesentatives of the party they favored would win... seens to be something we don't know much about... but we _do_ know that they could easily arrange their machines to assure that result.