Huh? How is that relevant?
I vote “A”, and the software erroneously records a vote for “B” and prints a vote for “B” on the paper trail. How is this paper trail supposed to verify anything at all?
You left out: voter reviews printed ballot (they’re separate pieces of paper that need to be reviewed and then the voter feeds them in to be tabulated, at least i’m guessing as that is how it was locally in TX. ). If voter sees they made a mistake, the mistake is destroyed and they fill out and review a new ballot. Incidentally, this is where some of the regularities like in Michigan come from… a handful of more votes printed by the machines than tabulated or voters signed in. Just like obviously someone signing in then sneaking out before voting could also make the books not match.
I didnt leave that out. The printed ballot is produced by the computer, not the voter. If the ability to verify election results is entirely dependant on every voter noticing potential discrepencies on a computer printed ballot during a brief review (if they even choose to review it at all), there is no ability to verify the election results.
I think you’re off the deep end. You seem to be saying voter can’t be bothered to review their entries but somehow a third party is supposed to scan their brain externally and review it for them… (or with non-uniform cave- scratchings, must externally scan their brain and use that to be able to interpret their nonstandard written “works of art” and somehow decrypt their intent and any outright mistakes)
In the current setup, for voters who can’t read or even can’t see, I believe they also provide people to assist.
Speaking of foolishness and people needing to stop acting foolish.
2 Likes
I don’t understand why you would say “if” about the mileage on my 2010 Lexus Gs 350. My 10 year old lexus now has probably close to 46K miles.
My porsche has multiple miles & is a beauty.
Do you want to know the mileage on my 2010 Ford F-150?
You really are using Google translate to convert back and forth from Russian, aren’t you?
(That’s a joke, obviously…)
It’s OK to only have a partial grasp of English. Not insulting or putting down(I’m being genuine). Maybe a Learn English class or something would help, where they’d converse back and forth with full sentences. All languages have nuances. (Or I would assume they do as I don’t know any others myself. I haven’t put learning another language on my to-do list yet. )
Scripta wasn’t asking if (what you already said). He was saying that based on the first statement (the if) it seemed likely your other vehicle had low miles, and asking how many it had…
2 Likes
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. 
Get off your “I’m right, so anyone who disagrees must be crazy” high horse, and you might have a better chance of understanding.
Comparing what the computer spits out with what the computer spits out doesnt verify a damn thing.
Comparing what the voter filled out with what the computer filled out will verify the computer is correctly tallying what the voter inputed.
Of course, such as with the hanging chads, there can be questions about if a ballot is proper before it is counted/recounted. But that’s entirely unrelated to the process of verifying the computer’s results. Today’s process “fixes” the questions of improper/disqualified ballots, but only at the expense of eliminating the ability to properly verify the accuracy of vote totals.
Nevermind the fact that basing the legitimacy of the tally on a review by the voter only requires a voter lie about his selection. “I voted for Biden, but my receipt says I voted for Trump!”. Instant controversy, with zero means of proving otherwise. I know, it’s far more preferable to just close your eyes and plug your ears while insisting no one would ever consider doing such a thing. But blind faith doesnt count as security.
The voter filled out the ballot that was printed.
The voter then verified the accuracy of what they filled out and submits it for processing.
What’s your problem? Electricity means there’s gremlins going and changing their entries and they are incapable of looking that they correctly entered what they want? So you want typewriters? You haven’t proposed anything, just said that you, as a voter, are incapable of reading your printed vote entries (or having someone read them to you) and checking that it is correct before submitting it. Or those could be “rigged” too – typewriters are still machines, after all. Is the only solution you would find acceptable completely blank posterboards and scribbled vote entries in crayons?
Maybe the posters were surreptitiously impregnated with invisible ink to only show up later. Better not go with paper. So instead each voter selects their own tree, chops it down, make pulp and their own paper.
1 Like
If train A is going 200 miles per hour and train B has a steam engine, how long will it take me to finish a bowl of soup?
I’m guessing that’s your main car, so… 250K?
Yeah, on the computer screen.
When you buy $15 of groceries and the clerk gives you $5 change, is that proof you must’ve paid with a $20? Or is the $50 you handed her proof that you didnt?
You rabbled on about a third party being able to read minds - that’s exactly what this process does require. Because the source document for this computerize vote is the voter’s mind informing the computer, verses a paper ballot informing the computer. The only way to verify the input matches the computer’s output is to read each voter’s mind and reconcile it with what the computer says.
But WHY DO you want to know if train A is going a distance of 200 miles ??
No, on paper. The voter prints their vote out on paper and then reviews it…
No, I watch on the screen and then review the receipt that is printed. (Or at least I did. Before President Covid ensured the disruptions to normal activities were as long in duration as possible. )
What’s your point with your example? GROCERY STORES NEED TO STOP PRINTING RECEIPTS!! FRAUD! Customer needs to write down their own receipt in sharpie!!!
This is an argument against uninformed voting. When I voted in person, I prepped my answers on a sample ballot. I’d do the same if I was voting on a screen – obviously I’m not gonna stand there and decide how to vote on 30 different candidates and issues, because you’re right, I might not remember all the answers I selected. But I will at least remember the most important ones, and that’s what the controversy is usually about.
The point of a paper trail is to safeguard against scanning and input errors (not just hardware failures), it is not a safeguard against hacking.
So you’re agreeing that the receipt saying you tendered a $20 is proof that you tendered a $20? No need to look at the bill you handed her?
You’re leaving off the last step. Which is exactly the same in both cases. You review the receipt. If it has mistakes and the credit card was charged the wrong amount, you get them corrected. Exactly the same.
Why are you NOT complaining about the demon machine intentionally substituting items and creating a false receipt??? And the customer’s inability to verify that the total was actually $15???
Plus the only possible reason why. The grocery register is adding $1 to the total because it knows you would have otherwise spent that $1 on a Trump Steak order. Fidel Castro and the liberal democrats hacked the cash register to target Trump! The cash register was made by ‘libs’ in Colorado and it sent the order off to Venezuela to get the total back!
Yes, but it’s also an argument about verifying the vote results days later. It’s the old “garbage in, garbage out” concept - without a definitive starting point, you have nothing to compare the final count with. And the starting point of the vote casting process is the voter’s mind.
The vote receipts are verified immediately in the process of the vote, by the voters themselves. Not days later. The artifacts are then retained and can be examining to prevent human errors in aggregating the totals that are physically distributed across a wide geographical area. That’s what the canvassing and any recounts is about (for the in- person votes). It’s a review of the artifacts to ensure the tabulation is correct.
It is not for verifying that the voters didn’t cast a different vote than they wanted to. That verification was immediate, as part of the process of casting the vote… and by- definition it could only be done by the voters themselves.
You can plug your ears and rabble on incoherently all you want. This “approach” is exactly why we are mired in such controversy. You set up a system that facilitates questions that are impossible to answer, then complain about the questions being asked that are impossible to answer, and can’t comprehend why simply declaring them “BASELESS!” doesnt satisfy everyone.
1 Like
You, scripta & Bender don’t speak the same language as many of us here.
I’ll do some explaining.
When scripta asked if, my old car A had only 40K, how low is the mileage on B.
I have 3 vehicles & mileage really had nothing to do with my original comment.
I was responding to shinobi… 1967 was the last year of the “good” cars.
My 1987 Porsche is probably the last year of the “good” porsche’s.