Do you trust Diebold to elect our President?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I was always under the impression that paper receipts would be put into a box at the polling station, just like standard paper ballots, to be brought out and counted only if there was a dispute.

Which is part of the requirements in HAVA - the standards for voting machines that was subverted in the early days of the George Jr administration by not funding it. HAVA was to set standards for voting machine - that every PC based voting machine violates aggressively. But then the question about having a backup counting device (ie paper ballots) was discussed back in 2004 such as
Letting the Voter Count

There exists simple fundamental hardware that must exist in any computerized voting machine. No conventional memory cards are acceptable. The memory card can be read only and only written to by incrementing a counter. Only way to write to such a memory chip is to increment the count. And that memory chip cannot be erased; only read repeatedly. No voting machines has this type of memory. Therefore every PC based voting machines will always be flawed.

Remember how you took standardized tests in the early 1960s? You marked paper with a pencil. Then that paper was submitting to a reading machine that graded your answers. That is how responsible locales do electronic voting. You mark the paper ballot. Then take it to a machine that reads your ballot. The machine then tells you which entries are missing or invalid. You can take and correct the ballot, or you can say, "Yes, I did not vote for anyone in that category". Once you say the ballot is correctly read, you tell the machine to count your ballot. And the machine stores all paper ballots in a big tray should a recount be necessary.

The smarter solution also does not have Diebold's et al high profit margins. It meets the intention of HAVA. It cannot print counterfeit ballots. And it provides a reliable source for a recount.

Why is this simple solution not standard everywhere? Why so many posts and questions that only reiterate what was posted four years ago in:
Letting the Voter Count
and in quoted articles in:
Easy Voting Fraud Machines ?

Superior solutions have existed, well, we were using it for standardized school tests originally in the late 1950s.