I know enough about computer systems to know that. It's just too damn decentralized, and too many people would have to be in on it.

Of course, there are people who will cheerfully accept conspiracy theories that would required hundreds to thousands of people to be in on it.

You have it backwards, Tom. We know for a fact that one hacker can bring down hundreds of thousands of computers. Hacking is the most asymetrical type of warfare.

There's no such thing as a truly decentralized system. The Internet's supposed to be so decentralized that it can survive a nuclear war. But the reality is that the Net has a relatively small number of chokepoints that can be attacked. For example, there's a small number of computers running directory services, so if you can hijack one of them you can make thousands of people believe that your site is MSNBC. In an ironic twist, the directory service is decentralized, but since the directories all have to contain the same information, every few hours they exchange information to resynchronize. Hijack one member of that network of directory servers, change a few records, and within a few hours your change will have propagated throughout the Internet. Hacking one computer is equivalent to hacking thousands.

Your district may have hundreds of voting machines, but they all have to send their information to one central location for counting. The info can be intercepted and altered in transmission, or it can be altered in the central vote-counting computer. Somewhere there's an Achilles Heel.

I don't know of any conspiracy to tamper with electronic voting systems. But knowing it's possible, and knowing that such a "conspiracy" could consist of a single individual, I can't relax my vigilance.

(Have you ever noticed the sides in this issue? On one side are a bunch of top-notch computer scientists who've outlined the vulnerabilities in the proposed systems. On the other you have Diebold protecting its economic interests, and Republicans pooh-poohing the very idea that tampering is possible. I'll trust the computer scientists to judge a computer system, thank you very much. And you'll forgive me for wondering why it seems to be mainly Republicans who deny the vulnerabilities. Their existence is an objective fact, so what interest are Republicans protecting when they belittle concerns about voting machine security?)

You asked Chris

If it's a Kerry landslide, will you demand an investigation of the computer voting system? Didn't think so.

Of course not, silly. The injured party has to pursue redress. If Republicans think they lost an election because of vote fraud, it's up to them to do something about it. I wouldn't expect either side to help the other in a situation like that.