Exit polls versus actual election results
 

I came across this on another site and found it very disquieting with its implications: http://rense.com/general59/steI.HTM

Is there anything to this or do I need to get a new ribbon for my tinfoil hat? :confused:

Whether or not there was fraud on the E-voting machines, they need to be fraudproofed. Short of a whistleblower in the company, there's no way to detect whether fraud occurred, so it's probably not really worth the tinfoil hat label for the meager results you may get. But fraudproofing future elections is a goal that should in theory be able to get broad support.

There's no way to know if there was fraud with the electronic voting. I do know that I am less confident now than I ever have been that my vote is actually being counted. I would rather have paper. Optically scanned ballots, where you fill in the oval with a number two pencil, can be tallied quickly and re-visited if there are questions later.

Comes down to federally mandated election standards
 

Its really sad to think that some of the only things that came out of the 2000 election was provisional balloting and the destruction of the VNS. I remember Tauzin from Louisanna trying to get reform through, of course nothing happened. Of course there should never be federal control of election processes, but there needs to be a federally mandated system, possibly subsidized by the federal government that will trickle down to the states, county by county. Each County Clerk in the state should hold the county in compliance with these standards period. 2004 is over, now there needs to be reform by the likes of Ralph Nader and others to ensure a more cohesive voting system exists in this country.

-Walrus

tw had a good start on what should be national standards for electronic voting.

I was given a provisional ballot, and when I called in to check its status, I was told my vote would not be counted until January! I was also told that the county was that far behind in keying in voter registration records. That's 3 months! They said I was listed as a Colorado voter, but my address change hadn't taken effect and wouldn't until January. That just seems plain wrong to me, especially since many other newly registered voters must be in the same predicament (or those like me with adress changes).

An article on e-voting.

Thanks for the site, HM. It would seem there are potential problems, but as you noted, who can say for sure unless someone were to come forward with actual proof? I continue to feel unsettled about the three month delay my county has admitted to in the keying in of voter registrations. I don't know if it's worth lodging an official complaint over or not.

Check his homepage before you go adding ribbons. The whole site is tinfoil hat territory. (That I happen to enjoy immensely).

Think of him as being kind of like Art Bell Lite.

Let me add to that ... Art Bell Lite with an anti-semitic flair, holocaust revisionism included.

Kind of unusual for the Crop Circle and Mysticism crowd, actually.

First known e-voting glitch. This one mysteriously gave Bush a few thousand extra votes from one machine.

Did this happen elsewhere, but was only discovered in one place?
Computer glitch give Bush extra votes

A computer reads numbers and does not have error detection numbers? ECC should be standard. Failure should be obvious the moment it occured. This is a major problem suggesting problems may be even more widespread.

Whose machine is that defective - manufacturer and model number? No useful details provided meaning that insufficient information is available to draw conclusions. Exactly the definition of a defective newspaper article. That report only suggests something is wrong - big time - with some Ohio voting machines and that voting officials were not concerned over something that should never occur undetected. If one voting machine counts that grossly in error and is not detected when read, then other machines certainly could be doing same - undetected.

Did the voting machine manufacturer fix his problems - or just make those problems undetectable?

An error of 3893 is unlikely to be the type caught by ECC. 4096, yes. Not 3893.