I really don't see the desire to go to electronic voting. Cost wise it just seems insane to buy all of these machines when they will be outdated junk in the not too distant future. I suppose the current administration would love to help a company like Diebold, seeing as Diabold donated and backed Bush during his re-election and has ties to the Bush family. Bush loves to see his buddies get rich. Ask Rumy about Tamiflu, and Cheney about Halliburton.
What is wrong with leaving something sacred to this country, like voting, to the old tried and true methods. They aren't completely perfect, but they get the job done. When I think of the word "unsecure" the first thing I think of is computers. Hacking, hardware and software failure, data loss and corruption, and processing errors are inherent to computers. Why would we want are voting to have to face those challenges?
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I really don't see the desire to go to electronic voting. Cost wise it just seems insane to buy all of these machines when they will be outdated junk in the not too distant future. I suppose the current administration would love to help a company like Diebold, seeing as Diabold donated and backed Bush during his re-election and has ties to the Bush family. Bush loves to see his buddies get rich. Ask Rumy about Tamiflu, and Cheney about Halliburton.
What is wrong with leaving something sacred to this country, like voting, to the old tried and true methods. They aren't completely perfect, but they get the job done. When I think of the word "unsecure" the first thing I think of is computers. Hacking, hardware and software failure, data loss and corruption, and processing errors are inherent to computers. Why would we want are voting to have to face those challenges?