[QUOTE=kladner;425667]I had not realized that went back to 1988.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. It has. See [URL="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/meet-the-e-voting-machine-so-easy-to-hack-it-will-take-your-breath-away/"]this article for just one example[/URL] on how messed up electronic voting is.

I don't know how it works in the "Great" US of A, but in Barbados, Canada and the UK we can ask for a simple paper ballot to use instead of the untrustworthy electronic stuff....

[QUOTE=chalsall;425668]Yeah. It has. See [URL="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/meet-the-e-voting-machine-so-easy-to-hack-it-will-take-your-breath-away/"]this article for just one example[/URL] on how messed up electronic voting is.

I don't know how it works in the "Great" US of A, but in Barbados, Canada and the UK we can ask for a simple paper ballot to use instead of the untrustworthy electronic stuff....[/QUOTE]
Paper is still the gold standard. It is difficult to rig things when the actual votes remain available. Things have ways of flipping and flopping in the electronic realm.

[QUOTE=kladner;425672]Paper is still the gold standard. It is difficult to rig things when the actual votes remain available.[/QUOTE]

You forget the "hanging chad" incident....

The Germans have a word for everything:
[URL="http://www.englishdictionaryonline.org/german/German.asp?word=Politikverdrossenheit"]Politikverdrossenheit[/URL]
[QUOTE]disenchantment with politics[/QUOTE][URL="http://www.englishdictionaryonline.org/german/German.asp?word=Politikverdrossenheit"]h/t[/URL]

[QUOTE=chalsall;425674]You forget the "hanging chad" incident....[/QUOTE]
I was thinking in terms of hand-marked ballots. Hanging chads were the byproduct of punch cards which were destined for machine counting.

[QUOTE=kladner;425679]I was thinking in terms of hand-marked ballots. Hanging chads were the byproduct of punch cards which were destined for machine counting.[/QUOTE]

OK. You are correct.

And because the punch machines driven by the humans back then didn't have sharp enough edges (probably because they had been used for too long) they didn't cleanly punch out the holes, and thus couldn't be read by the primitive electronic equipment.

But somehow were interpreted by humans in making a decision...

When we get right down to it, any system can be cheated. Maybe the local count of physical ballots is accurate, but the reports of that tabulation are still going to end up in computers somewhere. Those physical ballots also need an unbroken chain of custody, which is extremely doubtful in many venues.

[QUOTE=kladner;425683]Those physical ballots also need an unbroken chain of custody, which is extremely doubtful in many venues.[/QUOTE]

OK. I absolutely agree with your statement.

Are you arguing that the "Great" United States of America achieves this?

[QUOTE=only_human;425547]Even so, spurrious voter roll purging should be included too.
[URL="http://www.thenation.com/article/how-the-2000-election-in-florida-led-to-a-new-wave-of-voter-disenfranchisement/"]How the 2000 Election in Florida Led to a New Wave of Voter Disenfranchisement[/URL][/QUOTE]
Also cheating via demographicly unbalanced voter disenfranchisement is done allegedly to prevent cheating.

[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/"]A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast[/URL]
[QUOTE]To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.

Some of these 31 incidents have been thoroughly investigated (including some prosecutions). But many have not. Based on how other claims have turned out, I’d bet that some of the 31 will end up debunked: a problem with matching people from one big computer list to another, or a data entry error, or confusion between two different people with the same name, or someone signing in on the wrong line of a pollbook.

In just four states that have held just a few elections under the harshest ID laws, more than 3,000 votes (in general elections alone) have reportedly been affirmatively rejected for lack of ID. (That doesn’t include voters without ID who didn’t show up, or recordkeeping mistakes by officials.) Some of those 3,000 may have been fraudulent ballots. But how many legitimate voters have already been turned away?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chalsall;425686]OK. I absolutely agree with your statement.

Are you arguing that the "Great" United States of America achieves this?[/QUOTE]
Yes. :mad:

[QUOTE=kladner;425689]Yes. :mad:[/QUOTE]

OK. :smile:

When, exactly, will this be next demonstrated?