should we elimiate ballots?

[MaC]

well, it's one thing we can agree on.  You're not the only one who's convinced me internet voting is a bad idea.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

eh, local libertarians usually don't have a problem with getting elected so that's not the point.  TV is the main way to go.  I can't imagine a better way to connect with the masses.  The problem is putting your ad on at 1:30am on Foxnews (which is what Badnarik did).  If it's not gonna be on prime time, large ratings channels, you might as well not advertise on tv.  Thing is, media pretty much does the work for a candidate (like a lesser known libertarian).  Democrats and Republicans aren't gonna campaign against us because they don't want to waste their time.  However, they do ignore us completely and pass draconian ballot access laws.  This does kill us.  I remember hearing about Karl Rove saying Bush has to campaign in New Mexico "because we're not gonna lose this state because of some piss-ant libertarian".  Lol.  The thing is, in this case, any attention at all is good attention.  They won't even bother with neg ads or anything until we reach 10%

You must be talking really local, because as far as I know, the Libertarians currently don't even have hold a single seat in any state legislature.  Why not try to win a couple of these, or, God forbid, a congressional seat, before throwing all your funds at a joke of a presidential ticket that never had any hope of eclipsing 1%?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

During my project to compile precinct results for counties around the U.S., I have noticed that among the few counties that count individual write-ins, about 70% of the write-ins are:

GEORGE BASH
JOHN F. CAREY
RAPHL NADER
GEORGE T. BUSH

The T stands for "The."  And after Jeb wins in 2008, we will simply start referring to the president as "The Bush," like how Rome started calling all emperors "Caesar."

[zorkpolitics]

1.not everyone has internet access
     Central polling places would serve for those without internet access
2.hackers can always dig into data bases and change votes
      Prove it
3.if you have several screennames, you could probably vote more than once.  Even if was linked to a serial number, there's still hackers that could find a way around it.
     States are now required to maintian statewide databases, which  should elimiante duplicate voting by cross checking addresses, SS #, etc
4.there's no paper trail to count and check the votes in case a re-count effort is needed or something.
   With everyvote counted instantly, there would never be a need for a recount

[Gabu]

2.hackers can always dig into data bases and change votes
      Prove it

If something on a computer is placed onto the internet, then any computer with access to the internet can connect to it.  You can make it harder for an outsider to be able to change anything on the computer, of course, but currently, there are only two ways to make it impossible:

1. Disconnect the computer from the internet.
2. Disallow anybody from accessing the computer.

Obviously, neither is a good idea.

   With everyvote counted instantly, there would never be a need for a recount

What would we do if someone alleged foul play and demanded proof that all people's votes were counted correctly?  What if the software running the election had something like this in it:

if ($VOTE == "George W. Bush")
{
  $VOTE = "John Kerry";
}