Liberal Forum

Paperless Electronic VotingA bedrock of democracy is ensuring that every vote counts. There needs to be a transparent system of vote counting so that people can trust that their vote is counted as they cast it. Paperless electronic voting on touch screen machines does not provide confidence to ensure votes are counted the way voters intend. 

The software on which votes are counted is protected as a corporate trade secret, and the software is so complex that if malicious code was embedded, no analysis could discover it.


Further, because there is no voter verified paper record, it is not possible to audit the electronic vote for accuracy, nor is it possible to conduct an independent recount. This is a grotesquely designed, over-complicated, expensive system fraught with the potential for mistakes and undetected fraud. We should not trust the future of our nation to such malleable technology.


On July 23, 2003, the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute reviewed the electronic voting system in Maryland and found that it had security far below even the most minimal security standards.

In the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2004,  four top computer scientists from the University of California, Johns Hopkins University, and Rice University similarly critiqued Diebold’s voting system: "We found significant security flaws: voters can trivially cast multiple ballots with no built-in traceability, administrative functions can be performed by regular voters, and the threats posed by insiders such as poll workers, software developers, and janitors is even greater.


Based on our analysis of the development environment, including change logs and comments, we believe that an appropriate level of programming discipline for a project such as this was not maintained. In fact, there appears to have been little quality control in the process.

"…The model where individual vendors write proprietary code to run our elections appears to be unreliable, and if we do not change the process of designing our voting systems, we will have no confidence that our election results will reflect the will of the electorate."


Computers are inherently subject to programming error, equipment malfunction, and malicious tampering. If we are to ensure fair and honest elections, and retain voter confidence in our democratic process, we need to ensure that there are no such questions.


Therefore, it is crucial that any computerized voting system provide a voter-verifiable paper audit trail and that random audits of electronic votes be conducted on Election Day. Paperless electronic voting machines make it impossible to safeguard the integrity of our vote - thereby threatening the very foundation of our democracy.


Moreover, the seller of the machines, the Diebold Corporation, is a supplier of money to one of the major party candidates, George W. Bush. The CEO and top officers of Diebold are major contributors to the Bush campaign. A corporation with vested political interests should not have control over the votes of the populace.
 

razoo » 08 Aug 2023, 8:04 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 8:04 am

Paperless Electronic VotingA bedrock of democracy is ensuring that every vote counts. There needs to be a transparent system of vote counting so that people can trust that their vote is counted as they cast it. Paperless electronic voting on touch screen machines does not provide confidence to ensure votes are counted the way voters intend. 

The software on which votes are counted is protected as a corporate trade secret, and the software is so complex that if malicious code was embedded, no analysis could discover it.

Further, because there is no voter verified paper record, it is not possible to audit the electronic vote for accuracy, nor is it possible to conduct an independent recount. This is a grotesquely designed, over-complicated, expensive system fraught with the potential for mistakes and undetected fraud. We should not trust the future of our nation to such malleable technology.

On July 23, 2003, the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute reviewed the electronic voting system in Maryland and found that it had security far below even the most minimal security standards.

In the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2004,  four top computer scientists from the University of California, Johns Hopkins University, and Rice University similarly critiqued Diebold’s voting system: "We found significant security flaws: voters can trivially cast multiple ballots with no built-in traceability, administrative functions can be performed by regular voters, and the threats posed by insiders such as poll workers, software developers, and janitors is even greater.

Based on our analysis of the development environment, including change logs and comments, we believe that an appropriate level of programming discipline for a project such as this was not maintained. In fact, there appears to have been little quality control in the process.

"…The model where individual vendors write proprietary code to run our elections appears to be unreliable, and if we do not change the process of designing our voting systems, we will have no confidence that our election results will reflect the will of the electorate."

Computers are inherently subject to programming error, equipment malfunction, and malicious tampering. If we are to ensure fair and honest elections, and retain voter confidence in our democratic process, we need to ensure that there are no such questions.

Therefore, it is crucial that any computerized voting system provide a voter-verifiable paper audit trail and that random audits of electronic votes be conducted on Election Day. Paperless electronic voting machines make it impossible to safeguard the integrity of our vote - thereby threatening the very foundation of our democracy.

Moreover, the seller of the machines, the Diebold Corporation, is a supplier of money to one of the major party candidates, George W. Bush. The CEO and top officers of Diebold are major contributors to the Bush campaign. A corporation with vested political interests should not have control over the votes of the populace.

You know you are not allowed to question the integrity of the voting system in this Country like that kazoo.

What are you, an insurrectionist or something?
 

Youth Voting: Lower the Voting Age to 16



Additionally, democracy in the United States needs to be re-invigorated. Allowing youth the right to vote will increase voter participation, not only of 16 to 18 year olds, but also in the longer term as youth would learn at an early age the importance of voting. Alongside this change in law, the Nader campaign also favors increased education about civics, government, and the importance of voting.

Consider these words by supporters of youth voting, which eloquently explain the importance of this historic movement:

"At the founding of our nation, only rich, white, land-owning men over the age of twenty-one could vote. Later, it was any white man over twenty-one. Following the Civil War, the Fifteenth Amendment gave the vote to African American men. Next, in 1920, women’s suffrage finally paid off with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment. Finally, in 1970 the voting age was lowered to 18 due to the counter-cultural movements of the 1960’s. Over hundreds of years, the vote has spread from the clutches of an elite few to an ever-greater percentage of the population. Youth are simply the next item on the timeline of Democracy’s growth."

- Brad Vogel, "Youth Suffrage," Between the Lines, www.btlmag.org

"What kind of twisted message do we send when we tell youth they are judged mature, responsible adults when they commit murder, but silly, brainless kids when they want to vote? This is a double standard, no different than during the Vietnam War. War isn’t a dead issue now either, leaders who youth can’t vote for today may send them to war tomorrow. Lowering the voting age is the just, fair way to set things straight."

-NYRA, National Youth Rights Association, youthrights.org

"For several reasons lowering the voting age will increase voter turnout. It is common knowledge that the earlier in life a habit is formed the more likely that habit or interest will continue throughout life. If attempts are made to prevent young people from picking up bad habits, why are no attempts made to get youth started with good habits, like voting? If citizens begin voting earlier, and get into the habit of doing so earlier, they are more likely to stick with it through life.

-NYRA, National Youth Rights Association, youthrights.org

A 1996 survey by Bruce Merrill, an Arizona State University journalism professor, found a strong correlation between youth voting and increased adult voter turnout. Merrill compared turnout of registered voters in five cities with Kids Voting, a mock-election program, to turnout in five cities without the program. Merrill found that between five and ten percent of respondents reported Kids Voting was a factor in their decision to vote. This indicated that 600,000 adults nationwide were encouraged to vote by the program.

-John Stuart Hall, "Elections and Civic Education, the Case of Kids Voting USA," National Civic Review, Spring 1998, 79.

"When the USA was founded, suffrage was restricted to white male landowners. Over time, it was extended to non-landowners, women, lower-class people (through the elimination of the poll tax), and minority races. There are no longer any groups whose voting rights are automatically denied except for people under 18. It’s a matter of social progress. When other groups demanded the right to vote, many treated their cause with hesitation or ridicule, but eventually social progress prevailed. But the evolution of suffrage is not complete until it is extended to everyone who deserves it, and we’re working to move closer to that goal."

-Teen Vote http://teenvote.us/why

http://www.youthrights.org/voteproposal.php

Proposal to Lower Voting Age
 

RedheadedStranger » 08 Aug 2023, 8:06 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 8:06 am

You know you are not allowed to question the integrity of the voting system in this Country like that kazoo.

What are you, an insurrectionist or something?

Insurrection
noun

1. a violent uprising against an authority or government = Like what Trump and his inner circle incited

Become Informed .......:

http://www.instantrunoff.com

http://www.fairvote.org

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org

http://www.firv.org/

http://www.massirv.org

http://www.nysirv.org

http://www.midwestdemocracy.org

razoo » 08 Aug 2023, 8:20 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 8:20 am

Insurrection
noun

1. a violent uprising against an authority or government = Like what Trump and his inner circle incited

"Incited" by questioning the integrity of the voting system... like your post just did.

You need to be on house arrest until the courts can rule you guilty as charged.
​​​​​​
Welcome to the Banana Republic of the USA.
 

razoo » 08 Aug 2023, 8:04 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 8:04 am

Paperless Electronic VotingA bedrock of democracy is ensuring that every vote counts. There needs to be a transparent system of vote counting so that people can trust that their vote is counted as they cast it. Paperless electronic voting on touch screen machines does not provide confidence to ensure votes are counted the way voters intend. 

The software on which votes are counted is protected as a corporate trade secret, and the software is so complex that if malicious code was embedded, no analysis could discover it.

Further, because there is no voter verified paper record, it is not possible to audit the electronic vote for accuracy, nor is it possible to conduct an independent recount. This is a grotesquely designed, over-complicated, expensive system fraught with the potential for mistakes and undetected fraud. We should not trust the future of our nation to such malleable technology.

On July 23, 2003, the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute reviewed the electronic voting system in Maryland and found that it had security far below even the most minimal security standards.

In the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2004,  four top computer scientists from the University of California, Johns Hopkins University, and Rice University similarly critiqued Diebold’s voting system: "We found significant security flaws: voters can trivially cast multiple ballots with no built-in traceability, administrative functions can be performed by regular voters, and the threats posed by insiders such as poll workers, software developers, and janitors is even greater.

Based on our analysis of the development environment, including change logs and comments, we believe that an appropriate level of programming discipline for a project such as this was not maintained. In fact, there appears to have been little quality control in the process.

"…The model where individual vendors write proprietary code to run our elections appears to be unreliable, and if we do not change the process of designing our voting systems, we will have no confidence that our election results will reflect the will of the electorate."

Computers are inherently subject to programming error, equipment malfunction, and malicious tampering. If we are to ensure fair and honest elections, and retain voter confidence in our democratic process, we need to ensure that there are no such questions.

Therefore, it is crucial that any computerized voting system provide a voter-verifiable paper audit trail and that random audits of electronic votes be conducted on Election Day. Paperless electronic voting machines make it impossible to safeguard the integrity of our vote - thereby threatening the very foundation of our democracy.

Moreover, the seller of the machines, the Diebold Corporation, is a supplier of money to one of the major party candidates, George W. Bush. The CEO and top officers of Diebold are major contributors to the Bush campaign. A corporation with vested political interests should not have control over the votes of the populace.

You do realize that is a twenty year old article from 2003?

And it’s often cited by right wing goons that pretend the only reason any right wing goon looses an election is voter fraud, usually by rigged machines?

razoo » 08 Aug 2023, 8:04 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 8:04 am

Paperless Electronic VotingA bedrock of democracy is ensuring that every vote counts. There needs to be a transparent system of vote counting so that people can trust that their vote is counted as they cast it. Paperless electronic voting on touch screen machines does not provide confidence to ensure votes are counted the way voters intend. 

The software on which votes are counted is protected as a corporate trade secret, and the software is so complex that if malicious code was embedded, no analysis could discover it.

Further, because there is no voter verified paper record, it is not possible to audit the electronic vote for accuracy, nor is it possible to conduct an independent recount. This is a grotesquely designed, over-complicated, expensive system fraught with the potential for mistakes and undetected fraud. We should not trust the future of our nation to such malleable technology.

On July 23, 2003, the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute reviewed the electronic voting system in Maryland and found that it had security far below even the most minimal security standards.

In the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2004,  four top computer scientists from the University of California, Johns Hopkins University, and Rice University similarly critiqued Diebold’s voting system: "We found significant security flaws: voters can trivially cast multiple ballots with no built-in traceability, administrative functions can be performed by regular voters, and the threats posed by insiders such as poll workers, software developers, and janitors is even greater.

Based on our analysis of the development environment, including change logs and comments, we believe that an appropriate level of programming discipline for a project such as this was not maintained. In fact, there appears to have been little quality control in the process.

"…The model where individual vendors write proprietary code to run our elections appears to be unreliable, and if we do not change the process of designing our voting systems, we will have no confidence that our election results will reflect the will of the electorate."

Computers are inherently subject to programming error, equipment malfunction, and malicious tampering. If we are to ensure fair and honest elections, and retain voter confidence in our democratic process, we need to ensure that there are no such questions.

Therefore, it is crucial that any computerized voting system provide a voter-verifiable paper audit trail and that random audits of electronic votes be conducted on Election Day. Paperless electronic voting machines make it impossible to safeguard the integrity of our vote - thereby threatening the very foundation of our democracy.

Moreover, the seller of the machines, the Diebold Corporation, is a supplier of money to one of the major party candidates, George W. Bush. The CEO and top officers of Diebold are major contributors to the Bush campaign. A corporation with vested political interests should not have control over the votes of the populace.

it's how joe won kazoo...**** cheated...
 

RedheadedStranger » 08 Aug 2023, 8:06 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 8:06 am

You know you are not allowed to question the integrity of the voting system in this Country like that kazoo.

What are you, an insurrectionist or something?

 
 
 

razoo » 08 Aug 2023, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 8:16 am

Youth Voting: Lower the Voting Age to 16

Additionally, democracy in the United States needs to be re-invigorated. Allowing youth the right to vote will increase voter participation, not only of 16 to 18 year olds, but also in the longer term as youth would learn at an early age the importance of voting. Alongside this change in law, the Nader campaign also favors increased education about civics, government, and the importance of voting.

Consider these words by supporters of youth voting, which eloquently explain the importance of this historic movement:

"At the founding of our nation, only rich, white, land-owning men over the age of twenty-one could vote. Later, it was any white man over twenty-one. Following the Civil War, the Fifteenth Amendment gave the vote to African American men. Next, in 1920, women’s suffrage finally paid off with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment. Finally, in 1970 the voting age was lowered to 18 due to the counter-cultural movements of the 1960’s. Over hundreds of years, the vote has spread from the clutches of an elite few to an ever-greater percentage of the population. Youth are simply the next item on the timeline of Democracy’s growth."

- Brad Vogel, "Youth Suffrage," Between the Lines, www.btlmag.org

"What kind of twisted message do we send when we tell youth they are judged mature, responsible adults when they commit murder, but silly, brainless kids when they want to vote? This is a double standard, no different than during the Vietnam War. War isn’t a dead issue now either, leaders who youth can’t vote for today may send them to war tomorrow. Lowering the voting age is the just, fair way to set things straight."

-NYRA, National Youth Rights Association, youthrights.org

"For several reasons lowering the voting age will increase voter turnout. It is common knowledge that the earlier in life a habit is formed the more likely that habit or interest will continue throughout life. If attempts are made to prevent young people from picking up bad habits, why are no attempts made to get youth started with good habits, like voting? If citizens begin voting earlier, and get into the habit of doing so earlier, they are more likely to stick with it through life.

-NYRA, National Youth Rights Association, youthrights.org

A 1996 survey by Bruce Merrill, an Arizona State University journalism professor, found a strong correlation between youth voting and increased adult voter turnout. Merrill compared turnout of registered voters in five cities with Kids Voting, a mock-election program, to turnout in five cities without the program. Merrill found that between five and ten percent of respondents reported Kids Voting was a factor in their decision to vote. This indicated that 600,000 adults nationwide were encouraged to vote by the program.

-John Stuart Hall, "Elections and Civic Education, the Case of Kids Voting USA," National Civic Review, Spring 1998, 79.

"When the USA was founded, suffrage was restricted to white male landowners. Over time, it was extended to non-landowners, women, lower-class people (through the elimination of the poll tax), and minority races. There are no longer any groups whose voting rights are automatically denied except for people under 18. It’s a matter of social progress. When other groups demanded the right to vote, many treated their cause with hesitation or ridicule, but eventually social progress prevailed. But the evolution of suffrage is not complete until it is extended to everyone who deserves it, and we’re working to move closer to that goal."

-Teen Vote http://teenvote.us/why

http://www.youthrights.org/voteproposal.php

Proposal to Lower Voting Age

christ kazoo, a 16 yo can hardly wipe their own ***, much less drink or join the military... why are you such a **** kazoo?
 

Bruce » 08 Aug 2023, 8:23 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 8:23 am

You do realize that is a twenty year old article from 2003?

And it’s often cited by right wing goons that pretend the only reason any right wing goon looses an election is voter fraud, usually by rigged machines?

bruce, kazoo's a window licker ...he realizes nothing...
 

ROG62 » 08 Aug 2023, 8:52 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 8:52 am

bruce, kazoo's a window licker ...he realizes nothing...

I meet liberals who believe 16 year olds, non citizens, and felons, should be able to vote.

It’s really difficult to argue why not.  The General idea of  America has always been, the will of the people guides our laws.

We have two hundred million two ton cars running 80 miles an hour over six million miles of paved roads.

If we grant a license to somebody to drive one of those, aren’t we out of excuses to say they can’t vote for the lawmakers who keep up the six million miles of roads?

Still yet, I’m a conservative.

It should stay the same, unless we can make it better.

razoo » 08 Aug 2023, 8:04 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 8:04 am

The software on which votes are counted is protected as a corporate trade secret, and the software is so complex that if malicious code was embedded, no analysis could discover it.

^^^ it sounds like you believe the 2020 election was rigged. This is why it cannot be proved, the software was proprietorship. They didn't have to release the algorithms , so the courts had nothing to go on. 
 

razoo » 08 Aug 2023, 8:04 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 8:04 am

Paperless Electronic VotingA bedrock of democracy is ensuring that every vote counts. There needs to be a transparent system of vote counting so that people can trust that their vote is counted as they cast it. Paperless electronic voting on touch screen machines does not provide confidence to ensure votes are counted the way voters intend. 

The software on which votes are counted is protected as a corporate trade secret, and the software is so complex that if malicious code was embedded, no analysis could discover it.

Further, because there is no voter verified paper record, it is not possible to audit the electronic vote for accuracy, nor is it possible to conduct an independent recount. This is a grotesquely designed, over-complicated, expensive system fraught with the potential for mistakes and undetected fraud. We should not trust the future of our nation to such malleable technology.

On July 23, 2003, the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute reviewed the electronic voting system in Maryland and found that it had security far below even the most minimal security standards.

In the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2004,  four top computer scientists from the University of California, Johns Hopkins University, and Rice University similarly critiqued Diebold’s voting system: "We found significant security flaws: voters can trivially cast multiple ballots with no built-in traceability, administrative functions can be performed by regular voters, and the threats posed by insiders such as poll workers, software developers, and janitors is even greater.

Based on our analysis of the development environment, including change logs and comments, we believe that an appropriate level of programming discipline for a project such as this was not maintained. In fact, there appears to have been little quality control in the process.

"…The model where individual vendors write proprietary code to run our elections appears to be unreliable, and if we do not change the process of designing our voting systems, we will have no confidence that our election results will reflect the will of the electorate."

Computers are inherently subject to programming error, equipment malfunction, and malicious tampering. If we are to ensure fair and honest elections, and retain voter confidence in our democratic process, we need to ensure that there are no such questions.

Therefore, it is crucial that any computerized voting system provide a voter-verifiable paper audit trail and that random audits of electronic votes be conducted on Election Day. Paperless electronic voting machines make it impossible to safeguard the integrity of our vote - thereby threatening the very foundation of our democracy.

Moreover, the seller of the machines, the Diebold Corporation, is a supplier of money to one of the major party candidates, George W. Bush. The CEO and top officers of Diebold are major contributors to the Bush campaign. A corporation with vested political interests should not have control over the votes of the populace.

you spent years trying to sell us that Russia Russia Russia hoax...why would anyone want to believe what you say about anything now?



answer the question or it's an admission that I am 97% right about you being a liars and a progressive propagandist 

razoo » 08 Aug 2023, 8:04 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 8:04 am

Paperless Electronic VotingA bedrock of democracy is ensuring that every vote counts. There needs to be a transparent system of vote counting so that people can trust that their vote is counted as they cast it. Paperless electronic voting on touch screen machines does not provide confidence to ensure votes are counted the way voters intend. 

The software on which votes are counted is protected as a corporate trade secret, and the software is so complex that if malicious code was embedded, no analysis could discover it.

Further, because there is no voter verified paper record, it is not possible to audit the electronic vote for accuracy, nor is it possible to conduct an independent recount. This is a grotesquely designed, over-complicated, expensive system fraught with the potential for mistakes and undetected fraud. We should not trust the future of our nation to such malleable technology.

On July 23, 2003, the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute reviewed the electronic voting system in Maryland and found that it had security far below even the most minimal security standards.

In the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2004,  four top computer scientists from the University of California, Johns Hopkins University, and Rice University similarly critiqued Diebold’s voting system: "We found significant security flaws: voters can trivially cast multiple ballots with no built-in traceability, administrative functions can be performed by regular voters, and the threats posed by insiders such as poll workers, software developers, and janitors is even greater.

Based on our analysis of the development environment, including change logs and comments, we believe that an appropriate level of programming discipline for a project such as this was not maintained. In fact, there appears to have been little quality control in the process.

"…The model where individual vendors write proprietary code to run our elections appears to be unreliable, and if we do not change the process of designing our voting systems, we will have no confidence that our election results will reflect the will of the electorate."

Computers are inherently subject to programming error, equipment malfunction, and malicious tampering. If we are to ensure fair and honest elections, and retain voter confidence in our democratic process, we need to ensure that there are no such questions.

Therefore, it is crucial that any computerized voting system provide a voter-verifiable paper audit trail and that random audits of electronic votes be conducted on Election Day. Paperless electronic voting machines make it impossible to safeguard the integrity of our vote - thereby threatening the very foundation of our democracy.

Moreover, the seller of the machines, the Diebold Corporation, is a supplier of money to one of the major party candidates, George W. Bush. The CEO and top officers of Diebold are major contributors to the Bush campaign. A corporation with vested political interests should not have control over the votes of the populace.

Finally,  a libtard corroborating 2020 election fraud.....how did it escape you for so long?

nefarious101 » 08 Aug 2023, 9:12 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 9:12 am

you spent years trying to sell us that Russia Russia Russia hoax...why would anyone want to believe what you say about anything now?

answer the question or it's an admission that I am 97% right about you being a liars and a progressive propagandist

Razoo, like a good little dim cultist, doesn't answer questions. LOL.

If he does, please come get me. I like to witness history in the making. 

Bruce » 08 Aug 2023, 9:04 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 9:04 am

I meet liberals who believe 16 year olds, non citizens, and felons, should be able to vote.

It’s really difficult to argue why not.  The General idea of  America has always been, the will of the people guides our laws.

We have two hundred million two ton cars running 80 miles an hour over six million miles of paved roads.

If we grant a license to somebody to drive one of those, aren’t we out of excuses to say they can’t vote for the lawmakers who keep up the six million miles of roads?

Still yet, I’m a conservative.

It should stay the same, unless we can make it better.

Yep, you're as conservative as an overweight, pink-haired, nose ring wearing, transgender specimen can be.

Bruce » 08 Aug 2023, 9:04 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 9:04 am

I meet liberals who believe 16 year olds, non citizens, and felons, should be able to vote.

It’s really difficult to argue why not.  The General idea of  America has always been, the will of the people guides our laws.

We have two hundred million two ton cars running 80 miles an hour over six million miles of paved roads.

If we grant a license to somebody to drive one of those, aren’t we out of excuses to say they can’t vote for the lawmakers who keep up the six million miles of roads?

Still yet, I’m a conservative.

It should stay the same, unless we can make it better.

of course liberals want them to vote...it doesn't mean they're right...some 16yos shouldn't be driving either...
 

ROG62 » 08 Aug 2023, 9:22 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 9:22 am

of course liberals want them to vote...it doesn't mean they're right...some 16yos shouldn't be driving either...

Progressive leftists want 16 year olds to vote because their support can be bought with free pizza and concert tickets.

​​​​​​

going completely to paper ballots is not the miracle cure. Vastly less efficient and vastly more prone to error.