Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)
- Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
or sign in to load a different list.
Loading...Saving...
Loading...Saving...
But thats the problem with touchscreens, how does one prove it? Especially in court.
millerstein 5 years ago
what about the good possibility that people may have simply not wanted to vote for a District 13 congressperson? We cannot prove this either way, no?
millerstein 5 years ago
About 17% undervote when only counting the touchscreen results. Less then 2% undervote in areas where paper ballots were used. Its just not feasable that only touchcreen voters did not want to vote in that race.
zyvek 5 years ago
NOPE...that's not the case... your point is correct that the voting system (not the voters) cannot prove it...problem! and point!... get a machine that can or find another way...PAPER BALLOT!
techyt 4 years ago
Leonard - I don't think anyone would have risked getting caught and busting their entire operation (reelect Bush at any cost), I think there was a time-frame built into the source code. - It begins screwing up the day of the vote, then shuts down - what do you think?
Anyway, since Liebold manufactures the ATM machines all over the country, and they don't screw up, but their touch screen machines or scanners or both are obviously hacked, I say we indict them. ^_^
WNanette 5 years ago