Link
Today Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman have a piece on
Freepress.org where they quote the latest General Accounting Office (GAO) findings on the 2004 election in Ohio and the use of electronic voting machines and lost votes or miscount votes. The article cites that "The CEO of one of the most crucial suppliers of electronic voting machines, Warren O'Dell of Diebold, pledged before the 2004 campaign to deliver Ohio and thus the presidency to George W. Bush." They use the facts on the vote, like the margin of victory for Bush and the statement "some of the concerns about electronic voting machines have been realized", to imply the whole difference in the votes does therefore account for the Bush victory. They also reference, as reported by the GAO, "Falsifying election results without leaving any evidence of such an action by using altered memory cards" is possible, and "The locks protecting access to the system were easily picked and keys were simple to copy,"
Inference as a tool for determining wrong doing is indeed effective as Karl Rove can attest, but just implying something doesn't make it true either. The evidence is not conclusive to me to make the claims the article asserts and have it believable. I do find merit, however, in concerns about the use of electronic voting machines. And I would support fail-safe voting after an election, even if that meant a return to paper voting. What do you think?
1 Comments:
A return to paper voting would be good.
Have you ever looked at a chart depicting the actual results versus the exit polls in states using paper ballots versus O'Dell's machines? In the states that used paper ballots (Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc.), the exit polls matched the final results almost exactly.
Post a Comment
<< Home