Well, to be fair, my grandmother assembled aircraft gauges in World War II.

ProfessorOhki: Znuh: Meanwhile, rigged machine?

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/11/06/machine-turns-vote-for-obama-into-one- f or-romney/

Never seen a miscalibrated CRT touchscreen before? You know, where the cursor is offset from the touchpoint by a constant distance? I mean, it's certainly possible that it's legitimate manipulation, but the fact that he didn't poke Stein to see if it selected Obama, etc. I've got a hard time putting any stock in it.

Besides, if you could mess with the machine on that level, why SHOW the voter you're tampering with their vote?

ProfessorOhki: http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/11/06/machine-turns-vote-for-obama-into-one- f or-romney/

You Seriously shouldn't skim. FTA:

" Being a software developer, I immediately went into troubleshoot mode. I first thought the calibration was off and tried selecting Jill Stein to actually highlight Obama. Nope. Jill Stein was selected just fine. Next I deselected her and started at the top of Romney's name and started tapping very closely together to find the 'active areas'. From the top of Romney's button down to the bottom of the black checkbox beside Obama's name was all active for Romney. From the bottom of that same checkbox to the bottom of the Obama button (basically a small white sliver) is what let me choose Obama. Stein's button was fine. All other buttons worked fine"

The problem with tampering physical ballots is the pile of physical evidence you have to overcome: 1) the bucketloads of fake ballots you have to create, transport, hide, and swap in; and 2) the bucketloads of real ballots you have to remove and dispose of. This requires multiple individuals involved either knowingly or unknowingly, which creates HUGE problems if you want to do it successfully.

The great part about electronic voting tampering is that it removes these immense physical hurdles - which makes it more tempting and more practically possible. Also it allows one action to have a much larger impact and requires fewer people in the know. It is also easier to hide obvious patterns as it allows you to modify results in real time so as to get just enough in your favor instead of creating a clearly out-of-place result.

Know how I know that the "voter-ID" people are full of shiat? They're also in most cases the people who pushed the hardest for electronic voting. If they really cared about reducing REAL vote-fraud (manipulating the results, not having people vote multiple times) they'd have been fighting electronic voting tooth and nail.

PsyLord: Why isn't this shiat secure yet? I mean we have ATM's and lottery machines that seem to be pretty damn secure.

Then the political parties in power wouldn't be able to manipulate the elections. ATMs, lottery and slot machines all have owners with a financial stake in you NOT getting in there. Election machines have people in charge with a stake in being able to break them.

We already know that Congress and state legislatures exempt themselves from almost every rule they make. It's not too hard to believe they wouldn't compromise voting integrity to exempt themselves from having to have a fair election.