won't find anything at this site about finding just the right technical
way that America should vote. "X makes the vote" begins with the
principle that in counting the votes, a system that everybody can
understand is to be used. This is to be better than a system that, at
best, one in a million can understand.
The new machine systems will be
discussed insofar as they demonstrate that the problem is not that
America CAN'T vote, but that our vote is being stolen.
most salient showing that Diebold can't run an election was the
statement by its chairman, O'Dell, of the necessity of electing Bush in
2004. That statement, alone, should have precluded Diebold from any
connection to elections. The followup, which was next to haphazard, was
the clincher, as they would have to convince where convincing was,
was public relations. But improving the machines isn't any answer.
Again, we need the system in which everybody can understand how votes
are counted, as opposed to where only the very few know or would claim
to know. We need the system where the people who count the votes come
from the body of people that makes their votes.
the ballot with an "X" isn't foolproof, but it doesn't give the vote,
the franchise, away. Electronic voting is automatically a potential
fraud, or a hoax, in which the people who run the counting can decide
or not whether a result can be skewed.
Stephen Freedman in a University of Pennsylvania study of the 2004
election studied presidential results in swing counties in all the 50
states and D.C., comparing the results with exit polls in those
counties. The result must be said to demonstrate that no time was
wasted in this election in the ability to skew results and actually
doing it. In 42 states, election results reported by election boards
veered toward Bush, compared to the exit polls, and by as much as 10%.
In 8 states and D.C. the election board results veered toward Kerry,
but only by up to 5%. A correspondence to use of voting machines was
shown in these figures.
Freedman took the results in three major states ( OH, PA, and FL), all
veering to Bush from the exit polls, and figured the odds against this
occurring by chance at 250,000,000 to 1. Later, he changed those odds
to 660,000 to 1 from methodological possibilities.
figure of 660,000 to 1, though several orders of magnitude less,
emphasizes how stupendous the certainty of skewing was, because the
much smaller number of the odds was still so very impossible to
The odds, of course, would increase
when applied to all the states and D.C.
How fast should we be willing to throw
out electronic voting, then,if the decision were to be based on other
than theoretical grounds, that is, upon what just occurred in the 2004
is general understanding that the standard in a criminal case is
'beyond a reasonable doubt', and that the standard in most civil cases
is 'the preponderance of the evidence'. When it comes to voting the
standard should even be less. If a study could substantiate electronic
voting at 75% chance that the votes weren't skewed, and 25% that they
were, the electronic system should be discarded. As it is, the
electronic system should be thrown out without so much as a second