"compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004".
Second time I use that quote. I should probably sprinkle that quote a few more times elsewhere.
Read it a few more times if you don't get it.
Paperless voting is a bad idea and this is a good opportunity to get that through our collective heads.
"compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004".
Read the quote a few more times if you don't get it. I personally don't see what your point is. Please do explain your position further.
I suppose we should assume everything is working just fine because there is no written record to say otherwise?
Personally, I don't think any of this will change the election results. It's more important that people realize paperless voting sucks.
If it's 130 thousand votes that went to Bush, it still doesn't close the 380 thousand gap anyway. The real issue here is paperless voting systems, not who should have won. Hopefully news like this gets more publicity. Companies making the voting machines should be held accountable for shortcomings of their products. Paperless voting sounded good "on paper" (haha i'm so funny). We tried it. Now we know it's a bad idea. We should chuck it on the ground and stomp on it repeatedly.
And 2 percent of 3 million is 60 thousand. We're talking about Florida, not the whole nation.
SCO can't get what it ultimately wants
on
Darl Goes to Harvard
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
SCO doesn't want to make public what part of Linux infringes on their IP because they WANT their code to remain in Linux and make money off it. Yes? No?
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry I should have made that clear. Approximately 3 million voters turned out for 2004 elections.
"compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004". Second time I use that quote. I should probably sprinkle that quote a few more times elsewhere. Read it a few more times if you don't get it. Paperless voting is a bad idea and this is a good opportunity to get that through our collective heads.
"compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004".
Read the quote a few more times if you don't get it. I personally don't see what your point is. Please do explain your position further.
I suppose we should assume everything is working just fine because there is no written record to say otherwise?
Personally, I don't think any of this will change the election results. It's more important that people realize paperless voting sucks.
If it's 130 thousand votes that went to Bush, it still doesn't close the 380 thousand gap anyway. The real issue here is paperless voting systems, not who should have won. Hopefully news like this gets more publicity. Companies making the voting machines should be held accountable for shortcomings of their products. Paperless voting sounded good "on paper" (haha i'm so funny). We tried it. Now we know it's a bad idea. We should chuck it on the ground and stomp on it repeatedly.
And 2 percent of 3 million is 60 thousand. We're talking about Florida, not the whole nation.
SCO doesn't want to make public what part of Linux infringes on their IP because they WANT their code to remain in Linux and make money off it. Yes? No?