From: "RobertB." 

In article , "Gary Britt"
 wrote:

> You misunderstand.  I wasn't trying to say it shouldn't be fixed.  I was
> trying to say that we have never had a perfect vote count in a national
> election ever, and to expect a perfect count is both not necessary and
> unrealistic.  Should we attempt to have safeguards?  Of course.  The biggest
> and most effective safe guard would be to use verifiable proof of
> citizenship upon registration and verifiable photo ID's at vote time.
> That's where the big vote fraud is and always has been, with a few
> exceptions such as voting machines floating in the Chicago river and
"found"
> boxes of ballots not previously counted and conveniently
"found" during the
> 3rd recount of a deadlocked race for Governor in Washington state.
>
> Gary
>
>
> "Geo"  wrote in message
news:4543ad31{at}w3.nls.net...
> > "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:4542242d{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> Elections are stolen when paper ballots are used also.  Is this really
> > such
> >> a big new worry?  Pole workers understand how to stuff paper ballots
> > better
> >> than they do how to stuff a computer?
> >
> > I can't fix crooked pole workers, I can fix the stupid software they use
> > for
> > electronic voting machines. Is there some reason you don't want it fixed?
> >
> > Geo.

Perfect is not the goal, however. Honest is the goal. A system not so
easily subject to rigging or cracking is. A system that is uniform and
consistent across all the states (the idea that each state and local
precinct determines the method it uses to vote is absurd and will
inevitably lead to inconsistent and inaccurate results nationwide). A
system that has not been sold to the privat sector to do with what it
wishes. Proof of citizenship is not the issue; nor should we force people
to have photo IDs (not every one has one), which basically penalizes many
of the people we want to vote.

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