From: Ellen K. 

I don't think there's really any way to guarantee that electronic voting
will be accurate.  Suppose they make it print out each voter's ballot
choices and the voter is supposed to then click something saying the
printout is correct, so what?  There is still no guarantee that what showed
up on the printout is what is recorded internally.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:19:27 +0100, "Phil Payne"
 wrote in message
:

>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/16/echelon_in_your_backyard/
>
>"Updating our recent item It's official: Diebold election bugware can't be
>trusted, we find that the North Carolina Board of Elections has certified
>Diebold systems (and two competitors' systems) without obtaining all of the
>source code as required by state law. Now, it's quite possible that there's
>not much of a story here, as it's unclear if Diebold is being given a pass,
>quite understandably, because it simply hasn't got the source code to some
>of the software it uses (physical impossibility is a mighty good defence),
>or if it's being given special permission to flout the law.
>
>We will know more soon, as the EFF is suing the state elections board. "The
>Board of Elections has simply ignored its mandatory obligations under North
>Carolina election law," EFF spokesman Matt Zimmerman explains. We'll soon
>see if it really is that simple.
>
>It is also worth noting that company CEO Walden O'Dell resigned unexpectedly
>last week, to the delight of investors and critics alike. O'Dell had the
>rather poor judgment to express publicly his dedication to seeing "Ohio
>deliver its electoral votes to the President." The company has failed to
>shake off the suspicions raised by such a partisan statement from a fellow
>in charge of a company that makes notoriously buggy election terminals."

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