bogarde73 wrote on Jul 11^th, 2016 at 11:07am:




Lol, really?

...This latest from Cambra, once proud heart of the nation...............  archaelogical teams and clean-up squads are only now finding areas into which they can go in their search for the cause of the 2016 boilover that consumed Cambra and left it a smoking ruin....... a large part of the reason was the biohazard contamination left over from the crash in 2015 of the Abbott Airlines Policy Thruster which was carrying toxic waste from Parliament House..... teams are only now being able to enter the outer suburbs, and surprisingly are finding a few feral survivors living on rats living off the bloated corpses of past politicians, all of whom are being decontaminated as we speak.. the rats are reported to be responding to the decontamination ....... it is expected that a United Nations Oversight Team into Failed Unilaterally Nations (a NOTFUN) will arrive tomorrow to assist in clean-up and hopefully to assist in determining why Cambra collapsed in upon itself on that disastrous day in 2016.... for more coverage see our full news at 6 on KRUD - YOUR News Network......

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 11^th, 2016 at 11:51am:



Why not?

Canberra, updated 6 minutes ago:

PM Angus Taylor and Opposition Leader Ed Husic have agreed a new poll will take place in 3 weeks time, conducted under the old pencil & paper rules.
Both leaders have agreed to dispense with further advertising and campaigning.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11^th, 2016 at 2:57pm:


None of which are actually arguments.

The cost of setting up a secure online portal is minimal compared to the cost of staffing and counting polling thousands of polling booths and counting stations.

Reliability - We all do our banking online, reliably, so what is the difference?  I'd be a lot more reluctant to stake my money than I would be to stake my vote, yet I use the system all the time and it's never failed me.

Security - I had to do-over last election because they "lost" some ballots, and the count this time is riddled with anomalies.  It's no easier to rig a computer program than it is "lose" or change paper ballots.

The only argument against electronic voting is "just because".

... wrote on Jul 11^th, 2016 at 3:36pm:


Actually they are.

Cost - How much would it cost to equip all the polling stations with sufficient PCs, routers, hubs, phone lines, etc., to allow them to connect with the AEC?

Reliability - Who fixes them when they go wrong?  Who makes sure they are reliable?  All important factors in something as important as an election.

Security - How do you make sure the system is secure enough to be resistant to pernicious crackers and hackers?  How do you make sure that the system has not been written in such a way that one party or another is favoured in the vote counting?   How do you make sure that the system has not been influenced by external or internal factors/errors?

Anybody with an ounce of IT knowledge knows and understands that.

Quote:


You'd trust a system to be used by the public, with their own PCs?  Really?  My, you are rather trusting aren't you?

Quote:


Just goes to show how little you value your vote then.

A banking transaction refers to only two people - you and the bank.  A voting system refers to you and every other voter, voting near enough to real time.  A massive difference.

Quote:


Nope.  Sensible people see the danger in this.   You're obviously not aware of what happened in the Philippines when Ferdinand Marcos was elected in 1986 when the electronic count was rigged?   Similar events have occurred elsewhere and have been charged elsewhere such as the USA where counting has been done electronically.

Better IMO, to have paper ballots can be recounted.   

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jul 11^th, 2016 at 11:53am:


This is well worth a look.