I'm a state delegate and received Jenkins phone call and e-mail. One thing I noticed was, Jenkins claimed there was fraud at the 2000 state GOP
convention when Greg Hawkins ran against Orrin Hatch for the senate. Yet the
2000 convention did not use electronic voting, it used paper ballots which is
the form of voting Jenkins supports. That to me seemed contradictory. He also cited a YouTube video which reports to show how the 2000 presidential
election was rigged. Yet the computer programmer who testifies before some
committee says in the video that electronic voter fraud is possible, but he does
not have any direct proof it had occurred. Again, this sounded contradictory.
Of course technology can be used to rig elections. I've been
hearing that since the 1980's. But if the technology has strong safeguards
against fraud, I'm all for using it.
The times may change but human nature does not. To think that there is no one
in the Utah GOP who might think that the end justifies the means and who would
be willing to find some way to manipulate the voting seems rather naive.I saw the video by the computer programmer who testified that programs
were written and it is possible to sway the outcome. Simply because he had no
evidence to prove that it had happened doesn't mean that it didn't.
In Nevada, there were several reports of voter fraud with the computerized
voting machines. And many other reports can be found all over the country.
Contradictory indeed.Why would anyone object to doing all that is
possible to insure that accuracy and honesty is the name of the game? Or is
the name of the game to win at any cost?It is a legitimate concern
for all Americans who vote.
"It's not like there are evil forces at work to steal elections."
Paper ballots could be intentionally miscounted to sway an outcome. So we have
systems in place for verifying the count -- at least we did at the state Senate
and Legislative elections last Saturday. I was near the front of the room, and
got to witness the procedure.A computer program could be altered to
sway an outcome. It seems that what is needed is for the electronic votes to
simultaneously be sent to two different electronic counting systems -- developed
by two different companies. Only if the counts come up the same on both
independent systems would the result of the election be certified. Each of the
two systems would be a check on the other system.
Yeah. All that modern stuff is dangerous. True Conservatives know what
direction to take.Backwards!
After being an elections judge for several times in the past 16 years, I believe
the system has been good with the process at the county and state conventions.
There can be some sleight of hand but that would have to be at more than one
group or box of votes. Also, with the electronic voting devices, the delegate
gives it up when leaving the convention hall but what happens with the device
when the delegate is gone and voting is still going on for other elections. Who
controls that at that time. If the individual comes back how does the delegate
know he got the exact same device? Color coding is part of the process but if
multiple yellow color devices are there does one make a difference if another is
picked up? Does the device show that it is one that got counted and if another
person has it due to mishandling at the entry/exit does that device have an
accountability? After watching the video and reading the information about the
voting, some of these questions didn't show up. The unbiased accounting
firm has to be one that is not linked to the device.
Regarding a previous comment:He did not say that he opposed the new
system; he simply wants some verification that his vote was recorded and
recorded accurately.A most unreasonable request - Wow - what is he
thinking? Some kind of a neanderthal. Can't we please
have a civil exchange?