Why are we not fighting tooth and nail for the removal of these?
"They are convenient" is not a good enough answer. People can be inconvenienced enough to print a few thousand paper ballots if it means preservation of actual democracy.
I don't trust these fucking machines at all. THOUSANDS of reports of votes being changed while using the machine. And these are from people with the common sense to figure out that their vote had been switched.
Now let's take someone like my grandma. Never used Internet and doesn't give a fuck. Do you really think she will even understand what's going on if she selects a candidate, clicks the next arrow (I don't think she would even get this far honestly) and on the confirmation page, her vote has switched to someone else?
If you count the paper ballots, say guy A has 500 votes and guy B 450. You confirm this number with about 8-10 other volunteers and then call it in. Later that night you can go online and look up the official count for your polling site. If it's anything other than 500 to 450 you know something is going down. But it won't be any different because people know better than to try and vote tamper this way.
Of course there are exceptions but you get my point.
I find it funny that certain candidates excel in RURAL AREAS (aka paper ballots) and get CRUSHED much wider than the polling margin of error in URBAN areas (use electronic voting)
>>70118682
Nobody up for actual conversation this morning? Too busy posting memes and anime?
>I find it funny that certain candidates excel in RURAL AREAS (aka paper ballots) and get CRUSHED much wider than the polling margin of error in URBAN areas (use electronic voting)
it's almost as if people with different education level, employed in different areas and generally living a different lifestyle had different opinions
but no its the electronic jew's fault
>>70118969
Ahh you sure did get me there on that one! Nice burn bro!
So you are literally telling me you feel 100% secure in the accuracy of electronic voting?
>>70119041
As far as i know we do not have electronic voting, so i really dont have an opinion about this. I am just reacting to the one point i can react to.
>>70119211
Would you agree though, say candidate A excels in rural areas, but struggles in Urban areas.
It would be extremely simple to tamper with the electronic votes to EXAGERATE his loss of votes in an urban setting, while still staying in line with the narrative
Wisconsin didn't even use these. We had paper ballots that were fed into a machine.
>>70119411
Even so, how do you know the result was accurate with anyone other than a human counting the ballots?
And furthermore, let's say only 10 of 50 states used electronic voting machines (I am sure the actual number is much higher)
In a heated neck and neck race, that is all it would take to turn the tide in the favor of one candidate over the other.
Direct Record Electronic machines are a meme. After the 2000 election disaster there was a rush to get voting machines out. Manufacturers quickly through commodity hardware in a special package, installed windows on it, wrote some shit software, and called it a day.
The best way to optimize votes for counting is optical scan ballot systems. You can't easily stuff the ballot box since you have a paper trail. You audit randomly putting the same number of hand tabulated ballots in several machines. If any of them get an off count, you can just go and hand count the entire election.
>>70119595
Auditing. You can always refer back to the paper ballots and hand count them, then feed them into the machine that counts them. Result doesn't match the hand count? Something is fucked up.
Democracy isn't worth destroying the world's forests. You won't have to worry about your candidate winning when there's no trees left to make oxygen.
>>70120177
Trees are a renewable resource you moron. the consumption of more paper is an incentive for tree farmers to plant more trees
>>70119358
>paranoia much
M8 in our last election, due to a close result, a recount was ordered and it turned out that a shit ton of Western Australian senate voting papers were completely lost. As a consequence, we had to vote for our senate again. That shit ain't free, it probably costed >$1 million. Due to the preferencing deals within the minor parties this could have completely changed the result of who was elected. Computers remove human error (deliberate or accidental), that will always be present in manually counting pieces of paper
>>70120890
Computers remove human error but open up an entirely new can of worms by making it much more easily to rig the vote count
