Utah GOP convention going electronic, but not without controversy

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • IdahoStranger NEWDALE, ID
    April 17, 2012 11:56 a.m.

    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?

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    April 17, 2012 11:03 a.m.

    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.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    April 17, 2012 11:02 a.m.

    Yeah. All that modern stuff is dangerous. True Conservatives know what direction to take.


  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    April 17, 2012 10:28 a.m.

    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.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    April 17, 2012 8:12 a.m.

    "It's not like there are evil forces at work to steal elections." TeeHee

  • IdahoStranger NEWDALE, ID
    April 17, 2012 7:52 a.m.

    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.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    April 17, 2012 4:42 a.m.

    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.