Mik Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 German High Court Outlaws Electronic VotingWednesday, 21 October 2009, 9:45 amArticle: Michael Collins A Censored Headline and why it Matters: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0910/S00187.htm"...They reasoned that electronic voting is not verifiable because citizen votes are counted in secret. It is obscured in a technology inaccessible to all but a very few initiates. Most importantly, the German high court noted, electronic voting machines don't allow citizens to "reliably examine, when the vote is cast, whether the vote has been recorded in an unadulterated manner"......The highest court in the nation with the world's fourth largest economy makes law that bans electronic voting after determining that computerized elections are fundamentally opposed to democratic principles. The decision applies directly to the electronic voting systems used in the United States. What do we hear from the U.S. corporate media? Just about nothing.". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Lee Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 German High Court Outlaws Electronic VotingWednesday, 21 October 2009, 9:45 amArticle: Michael Collins A Censored Headline and why it Matters: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0910/S00187.htm"...They reasoned that electronic voting is not verifiable because citizen votes are counted in secret. It is obscured in a technology inaccessible to all but a very few initiates. Most importantly, the German high court noted, electronic voting machines don't allow citizens to "reliably examine, when the vote is cast, whether the vote has been recorded in an unadulterated manner"......The highest court in the nation with the world's fourth largest economy makes law that bans electronic voting after determining that computerized elections are fundamentally opposed to democratic principles. The decision applies directly to the electronic voting systems used in the United States. What do we hear from the U.S. corporate media? Just about nothing.". We have electronic voting in Florida and the computer checks our registration and then spits out a form with a number on it and then we go into a booth and make marks in the box of the candidate we want to vote for and all the questions we wish to answer....... There were a few that I wished to abstain from because either way the citizens were going to get screwed and I figured that I did not want to add to the screwing....... Anyway the point I am trying to make is, that once we were done the paper was then fed into another computer and it counted the votes....... The machine actually told me how many answers I did not reply to and asked if I wanted to answer those or accept the vote as it was, and I accepted it and it counted my vote and the paper with numbers that could be traced back to being legit via the other computer went into a box and could be looked at for a recount if necessary..... So electronic voting could work but anything made by man can be fixed by man and we did get Obama for president and I am not sure that was really the will of the people, but that is just my opinion because Obama stood for change but never said what changes he stood for and the changes we got is to give the hard working mans money to the people who do not wish to work :th_thholysheep: but that is for another topic and goes into a subject we probably should not get into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMason Posted October 21, 2009 Posted October 21, 2009 German High Court Outlaws Electronic VotingWednesday, 21 October 2009, 9:45 amArticle: Michael Collins A Censored Headline and why it Matters: http://www.scoop.co....0910/S00187.htm"...They reasoned that electronic voting is not verifiable because citizen votes are counted in secret. It is obscured in a technology inaccessible to all but a very few initiates. Most importantly, the German high court noted, electronic voting machines don't allow citizens to "reliably examine, when the vote is cast, whether the vote has been recorded in an unadulterated manner"......The highest court in the nation with the world's fourth largest economy makes law that bans electronic voting after determining that computerized elections are fundamentally opposed to democratic principles. The decision applies directly to the electronic voting systems used in the United States. What do we hear from the U.S. corporate media? Just about nothing.".I don't see why it matters if you can "reliably examine, when the vote is cast, whether the vote has been recorded in an unadulterated manner" or not. When I cast my paper ballot, I fill it out and drop it in a box to be counted. I have no way to know if it was tallied appropriately as I intended it to be or if it is even counted at all. I guess you either trust the govt. to run fair elections or you don't. They don't do electronic voting in Afghanistan, Iran, or the Philippines but I have zero confidence in the accuracy of the vote in any of those countries. So electronic voting could work but anything made by man can be fixed by man and we did get Obama for president and I am not sure that was really the will of the people, but that is just my opinion because Obama stood for change but never said what changes he stood for and the changes we got is to give the hard working mans money to the people who do not wish to work :th_thholysheep: but that is for another topic and goes into a subject we probably should not get into. I'm sure there are some irregularities in US elections but I don't think they are rigged. I think Obama won a majority of both the electoral and popular votes. People may be disappointed in the change they are receiving but voters remorse doesn't mean the election was rigged. I couldn't believe the people elected Bush not once but twice, but it really happened. I liked the British newspaper headline after Bush was re-elected in 2004....'How can 43 million people be so stupid?' The 2000 presidential election shook my faith in the system, not because Bush won, but because the courts decided there wasn't enough time to do a full recount even though everyone agreed there were voting irregularities. No matter how the votes are cast, there should always be time to do a re-count the votes when an election is within a certain margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mik Posted October 22, 2009 Author Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) article: http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-5.htm#computer. Edited October 22, 2009 by M.Morey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
til Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 I don't see why it matters if you can "reliably examine, when the vote is cast, whether the vote has been recorded in an unadulterated manner" or not. When I cast my paper ballot, I fill it out and drop it in a box to be counted. I have no way to know if it was tallied appropriately as I intended it to be or if it is even counted at all. I guess you either trust the govt. to run fair elections or you don't. They don't do electronic voting in Afghanistan, Iran, or the Philippines but I have zero confidence in the accuracy of the vote in any of those countries.I'm with you on this.And I'm even fairly certain, that cheating would be easier to trace in an electronic system, if it is designed and handled correctly.But jurists are a species of there own. My theory is that there is no logic to laws, so if you study the law your logical thinking degenerates, because it just hinders you to understand laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts