> With paper voting (or a good electronic system), people on the inside are the
> only ones who can mess around with it.
> With the one that the US is going to use for their elections, people on the
> outside can mess with it too. I'd say the US is making a bad decision going
> with those Diebold machines.
Given the fact that both parties have money, both have some modicum of power, the American public is divided fairly equally, and each division has comparable numbers of people that would do such a thing, I'd say everything should be hunky-dory.
Think about it - either party could potentially do what they need to win the election, including cheating. I'm to naive to think they would go to the extreme of hacking the machine, but certainly the possibility is there.
What makes more sense is an activist from either side creating hell with the machines. In that case, I think you'd have to agree that there are an equal number of supporters for either side that have the will and ability to do it.
Interestingly, even if they don't, it still makes sense. For example - If Bush was leading in this country by 70% and had many more people willing to hack the vote to get him to win, wouldn't that still be an accurate representation of the truth as if they didn't hack the machine? Sure.
More interestingly, in an election where it is 70/30, the hackers for the trailing candidate would even it out to a true representation.
It'll never be perfect, and it doesn't have to. Here's the kicker: You know why people are so concerned about voting machines? Because the candidates are so similar, so equal in American's minds. Given that, who cares who wins? They're virtually indistinguishable. How can America be so polarized for either side, and yet so equal? It doesn't make sense.