Canada is indeed an extraordinary example of how clean, simple and efficient all-paper elections can be. Their results are typically in in under 4 hours for the whole country!

As for handicapped voting, it can be done on paper for blind and motor-impared voters. See www,Vote-PAD,com.

From the article:

"And you also have to guess that if Rove were planning on rigging the election, he would probably not be advertising his certainty now."

I don't understand this logic. If the election is rigged and there was NO POLL in existence that agreed with it, wouldn't there be more doubt than if a single poll (even secret one) did agree with it?

In fact, isn't this exactly the right thing for Karl to claim if he WAS rigging the election? At the end of the day, he can say that his polls were accurate because he knew how to do an accurate poll and nobody else did.

Thank you for keeping an open mind. You show objectivity by changing your opinion about the integrity of US elections, now that there is incontrovertible evidence of widespread ineptitude and fraud our elections system.

I have new-found respect for you and Salon.

Thank you for shining some light on the problems we face.

Suppose you're in a county where 10,000 people vote. Of these 10,000, 1,000 elect to use paper ballots. If the official count from the electronic system has candidate 'A' winning by 2,000 votes, do you think they're really going to bother to count the paper ballots before certifying the election? Why would they bother when the 1,000 paper ballots can't change the election, even if they recounted.

I think we need to face the facts that unless we force the authorities to have a voter verified paper trail and start enforcing a strict security plan for voting machines, we will never be sure that the votes we enter are the votes that get counted.

We should make Diebold treat our votes as well as they treat the banks' money.

One of the problems that underlies voting reform is that we expect that technology will fix the problem. The real problem with our system is us. We are willing to do anything to see our side win. We espouse democracy as long as we can control the results by one means or another. Fixing elections is simply one of the many methods we use. Think, for a moment, about the sheer absurdity of using computers to create a tamper-proof system. This is only slightly less absurd than thinking we can create a tamper-proof system in the first place. That would require that we be able to trust one another to be honest. Why spend billions on equipment when we can get the same results with paper ballots? At least with paper ballots, the ability to fix elections would be more democractic. It encourages fixing at the local level rather than placing the power in the hands of Diebold.

From day one, from the beginning. Believe it.

Manjoo's arrogant and condescending attack on Robert Kennedy Jr.'s seminal piece on Ohio's fraudulent election in 2004 is still fresh in my mind, and obviously in Manjoo's as well. His ego just won't let him be wrong even though he is. "Rational' people decided a long time ago what he still thinks is arguable: Of course the 2004 presidential election was stolen in Ohio. I was there in October two years ago, going door-to- door and talking to Kerry campaign people at all levels. It wasn't only the technology that did it, but the distribution of voter machines, and other (Democratic) voter suppression methods that the Republicans have elevated to a science.

Elections have never been honest in this country, and probably everywhere else as well. Democrats used to vote the graveyard, and Republicans scare voters away. Only in America would we take pride in 13,000 separate election systems, and letting partisians run them. But then we're the best there is. Right?

Until we get one set of rules, from sea-to-shining-sea, auditable paper trails, and a supervisory system that is non-partisian will we have an election system worthy of the name. What we have now is just another hoax perpetrated on the gullible who are led to believe their vote counts - those that still do that is - so that political elites can continue in power, whether they be Republicrats or Democans.

Lastly, if ATM machines can keep track of every dollar that goes through them, obviously with an auditable record, then a secure voting machine can certainly be designed. But then ATM machines deal with something important: money. Votes obviously don't meet that standard.

Anyone who has seen the recent movie “Man of the Year” is aware of the untold mischief electronic voting machines can do to our democratic election process. And the facts are at least as bad as the fiction.

In late 2005, on two occasions my spouse and I attended public hearings at the California Department of State in Sacramento, convened at the behest of appointed incumbent Secretary of State Bruce McPherson and ourselves testified as voters of long experience. The two different official groups were charged with receiving public input and testimony concerning certification of electronic voting technology. We witnessed that speakers both lay and expert almost universally condemned these machines as being unreliable and subject to fraudulent manipulation and that electronic voting machines in concept are not consistent with the fairness and transparency necessary for confidence in the election process.

The first commission recommended against certification and was dismissed by the Secretary and a new, seemingly “jumped-up”, panel with no discernible credentials was appointed with only a couple of days of public notification for a hearing Monday of Thanksgiving week. Someone present ASKED this second panel for its purpose, and it was admitted by the panel members that they had no part in the decision concerning certification. Secretary McPherson did not attend either hearing, ignored the concerns expressed, and subsequently certified electronic voting machines made by Diebold and other manufacturers.

We are disgusted, amazed, and appalled that a public official would ignore the weight of expert and public testimony on two occasions and treat the concerns of citizens in such a cavalier fashion.

Those present at the hearings were offered a subscription to the commission’s findings and notification of following hearings. We never heard from either commission again in spite of this promise. This smacks of “window-dressing” hearings with foregone conclusions. We fear that Secretary McPherson’s single-minded efforts to foist substandard electronic voting technology on California voters will result in countless disputes over election results and subsequent lawsuits, undermining the basis of our democratic government. If McPherson is elected California is fated to become another “Florida”.