From: "Antti Kurenniemi" 

We send electronic invoices to our customers, who pay them directly to the
bank, and then we pull the data from the bank to our system, and I don't
think even the bank has any papers of any of this money going back and
forth. These days of cheap printers, a "paper trail" doesn't mean
much anyway.


Antti Kurenniemi
(still the amount of office paper used keeps rising - what's with that?)

"Ellen K." 
wrote in message news:6qapn0d3crv46c1hr6ths2hs4rrd0k627q{at}4ax.com...
> Yes, there needs to be a paper trail.   That is the problem.   The
> systems being put into use do not have a paper trail.
>
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:30:37 -0500, "Geo"
 wrote in
> message :
>
>>"Ellen K."
 wrote in message
>>news:t3nnn0d3g4oghru88u6b5o7p09ebc3ha4r{at}4ax.com...
>>> Nah, there's a huge difference:   There's a paper trail because there's
>>> another party on the other side of every transaction, i.e. you deposit
>>> your weekly paycheck, if they credit you less than the amount, you have
>>> your paystub and your employer has the record of how much THEIR bank
>>> took out of their account.  Similarly if you pay a bill electronically,
>>> the company you paid and the other bank have records of how much they
>>> received.   With electronic voting it's a single-entry system.
>>
>>it's not a single entry system, I have one vote, I transfer that vote to
>>the
>>candidate of my choice. It's no different than a money transfer and there
>>is
>>no reason not to have a paper trail.
>>
>>I can do electronic banking, I can electronically file my taxes, I can buy
>>stuff electronically, voting is no different than any of these.
>>
>>Geo.
>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5