Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Furthermore, in PA it's the counties who decide which machine to have, so now you've got to influence 67 different county-level commissioners.
|
There also is no requirement that anything electrical meet UL standards. But effective standards exist where no other alternative exists. Therefore every electrical appliance manufacturer goes the extra (and expensive) step to get that UL approval – which no one is required to have.
HAVA was supposed to do same for electronic voting machines. Just like UL, HAVA was supposed to be a useful standard to define a reliable voting machine. A question is how much did Diebold, et al pay to get HAVA killed.
The only reason to go to electronic voting machines is to make the election more secure and accurate. Instead we computerize something to make it less secure and less reliable? Yes, I too often see people computerize only because "computerizing must be good" rather than ask and define the strategic objective.
In asking about the strategic objective, let's say the fraudulent voters, identified by the election commission, appears to vote. Will the police be called to the poll station?