A Step Backward For Voting System Transparency 124
Verified Voting is reporting that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) introduced the Bipartisan Electronic Voting Reform Act (S. 3212). While having many commendable features, this bill also has a few stinkers, including language that would exempt from any verification requirement those paperless voting systems purchased before January 1, 2009 to meet HAVA's accessibility requirements. This would leave millions of voters (particularly those with disabilities) dependent on insecure paperless electronic machines for years to come. The Senate Rules and Administration Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow, so if you have an opinion, now is the time to make yourself heard. Rush Holt has a much better bill.
Stinkers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stinkers (Score:4, Interesting)
You're missing a link. How does it prove their corrupt? It is also possible they are just ignorant or haven't thought it through. To show corruption you would have to prove that they knew about the problems but ignored them to instead focus on campaign contributions the makers of the machines gave them.
Re:Stinkers (Score:5, Insightful)
It's their job to be informed, and to "think it through". Oh, so ignorance and stupidity excuse what amounts to treason now? What will it take for the people of this nation to adopt a zero tolerance policy regarding government shenanigans?
Re:Stinkers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stinkers (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell send 'em to jail. They broke the Constitution---the highest law in the land. If that's not worth some jail time, what is? What, it'll cause lawmaking to grind to a halt and only the most well-considered and constitutionally-sound laws to be passed? Awww... ;-)
Re:Stinkers (Score:4, Insightful)
Or this would just have the unintended consequence of making judges very reluctant to declare laws unconstitutional, because they don't want to send a legislature to jail.
Re:Stinkers (Score:2)
Well, it all depends on how blatant of a violation it is.
The DC gun ban was considered vaguely constitutional for decades. I wouldn't send the people who instituted it to jail.
On the other hand, warrantless wiretapping is blatantly unconstitutional. It'll be overturned as soon as (if) it hits the Supreme Court, as long as the justices have an ounce of sense left in them (and I'm pretty sure that they do)
Re:Stinkers (Score:2)
...Supreme Court, as long as the justices have an ounce of sense left in them (and I'm pretty sure that they do)
Not the ones who threw us the eminent domain curve ball (yes, the court has changed a few members since.)
Re:Stinkers (Score:5, Insightful)
Not with the current Supreme Court makeup. Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts love the idea of the "unitary" executive and are purely partisan actors. As long as there is a Republican president (or confidence in enough Republicans in the Justice Dep't or federal court), they will grant the President whatever powers of arrest and surveillance he wants. Warrantless wiretapping would sail through the current Supreme Court. I was shocked that they gave the Guantanimo guys the right to federal court access, but I think there were too many honest JAGs to guarantee they would get a full set of convictions. This way, when they find that many of the Guantanamo detainees are innocent, they can blame the radical "liberal" justices in the Federal Court.
Believe me, we have reached a point where the Bush Administration does not believe they have to listen to the Supreme Court even. Just look at how they are gaming the ruling from last year about the EPA having the authority (and are required actually) to regulate emissions. Bush basically is telling them to fuck themselves. After all, what are they gonna do? The Supreme Court has no authority to enforce anything. It's like the subpoenas of the Bush lawyers by Congress. You think that a prick with ears like Atty Gen'l Mukasey is going to disobey his boss and enforce the law? Again, what is Congress gonna do about it?
There is a Constitutional crisis of the most serious proportions going on in our government right now, and the media is absolutely unwilling to cover it. Wexler and Conyers are trying to lay the groundwork for a case against the White House, and the report from the Justice Dept about Monica Goodling is just the president throwing a little fish under the bus.
I can't write any more about this now. My wife says she can tell when I'm writing about the Bush Administration because I grind my teeth, and I have to stop right now and go out in the garden with her.
Anyway, you're a bright bunch. Go read this stuff for yourself.
Re:Stinkers (Score:2)
Re:Stinkers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stinkers (Score:2)
How many years would it take at that rate to get honest officials?
and there'd be three bills passed a year.
So in the worst case you'd get a new stupid law every 4 months...
Re:Stinkers (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it'll just expand the bribery to the judges who rule on Constitutionality, or, as it is now, keep it with the people who put those Judges on the bench.
Seriously, our judicial branch, while more resistant to the corporate smegma that rule this country, is slowly becoming part of the corporatocracy.
Re:Stinkers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stinkers (Score:2)
Plain English only, no legaleze allowed. Why should the lawyers in Congress be allowed to write indecipherable crap to guarantee perpetual employment for themselves and their peers?
Re:Stinkers (Score:4, Insightful)
Playing the devil's advocate, what you call "legaleze" appears indecipherable because it uses specialized forms to eliminate (or try to) ambiguity.
This is almost a meme on slashdot now: Legal language is similar to code, in that both must use arcane structures to be unambiguous; ideally, any machine will interpret code the same way every time according to the rules of the language, and, ideally, an interpretation of a legal document will be similarly consistent.
That's often not the case, of course. But when it is abused, it is not the language that is at fault but the obfuscation. Banning legal language would be like banning C because it can be so spectacularly obfuscated [wikipedia.org].
Re:Stinkers (Score:2)
Re:Stinkers (Score:1)
Hrmmm... If this is the case, then someone should relay think about standardizing 'legaleze' - As it is it has seemingly different result depending on the interpreter.
Last time I check, gcc and visual c compiled code that returned the same result...
Re:Stinkers (Score:2)
If it passes this test submit it to a random jury of people aged between 9 and 90. Have them attempt to both understand it and find loopholes.
We should do this with voting as well. (Score:1)
WE should repeal the constitutional amendment prohibiting poll taxes and tests, so that, states would be allowed to ensure that only intelligent, responsible, people were allowed to vote.
Re:Stinkers (Score:3, Interesting)
Another idea is to fine anyone who votes for a bill that is later found unconstitutional.
Also reward (possibly using that same fine money) anyone who kills a bill. Year by year, we should strive to have -less- laws than the year before---not more.
It seems we're upto a point where nobody can possibly even skim over all the laws in their entire lifetime, much less understand a small fraction of them. And it's only getting worse year after year. Sorta like the tax code.
Re:Stinkers (Score:2)
Re:Stinkers (Score:2)
The problem is voting for bills they don't understand. In some cases havn't even bothered to read. Nothing wrong with someone voting against (or abstaining on) a bill they don't understand, this might be an indication that the bill in question is pure bovine excrement.
If a certain percentage of congresscritters fail the test, the bill is scrapped. If the people voting for it can't understand it, it should not be made into law. Period. Another idea is to fine anyone who votes for a bill that is later found unconstitutional. I want my politicians thinking about law, not politics.
You can't eliminate politics without eliminating people. What is also a good idea with a legislature would be to have a meme of "quality rather than quantity" (either in respect of number of bills or even size of bills) with respect to passing legislation together with one that repealing old laws is at least as important as passing new laws.
Re:Stinkers (Score:3, Informative)
Intention ignorance amounts to treason, IMHO. The nation has been fucked over via unverifiable elections the last time, and congress is effectively turning a blind eye to the defective system, in order to "save a few bucks" because they did spend a shitload of money on that white elephant. I mean, Diebold isn't exactly in the poorhouse.
Re:Stinkers (Score:2)
Treason? Again I'd argue that treason implies intent, or should anyway. So it excuses it in the same way that "I did not mean to kill him" "excuses" murder.
In both cases it doesn't mean it's okay. Manslaughter is still bad. Failing to do your homework and consequently making elections less fair is also bad. Nonetheless, this isn't corruption or treason, and it is an important distinction. For one thing, accusing congress of treason and corruption when it's really just usual stupidity makes you sound like you're either wearing a tinfoil hat.
When and where have people ever done that? There are plenty of cases where people wouldn't stand for the government they had, but no cases I can think of where they turned that into the perfect government system, where their officials make perfect decisions, considering all aspects of their actions.
Re:Stinkers (Score:1, Flamebait)
Fine, great, yes. Accountability and resposibility and all that, I agree. It's not treason though.
This is not treason: they don't realize it's going to be bad for the country, or they don't think it will.
Once again, treason is intentional, this is not.
Not for nothing, "epic fail"? Can we keep the internet memes on 4chan?
Re:Stinkers (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, so ignorance and stupidity excuse what amounts to treason now?
We all appreciate your enthusiasm, but ignorance of the exact contents of a bill is by no means treason, nor does it "amount" to treason. You know that.
And have you considered that there might be a reason the bill has this exception? Perhaps it's just not feasible to get machines that are both accessible and verifiable before 2009, so they chose to just go with accessible. Your immediate jump to corruption is rather silly and paranoid.
Re:Stinkers (Score:2, Informative)
It is dereliction of duty. The duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution and to serve the people of the U.S. You ought to know that, and if you don't, shame on you. I know evading responsibility is very fashionable nowadays, but it is still shady, unethical, and in this case it is certainly illegal according to the spirit of the law. WTF do you think the oath every elected official and civil servant has to take is supposed to mean?
Heh, the CAPTCHA says "righter".
Re:Stinkers (Score:1, Troll)
Even accepting the stretch that "failure to know contents of a bill" = "dereliction of duty", it's quite obvious that "dereliction of duty" != "treason".
In fact, even if a congressperson is willfully corrupt, taking bribes and rigging elections, it's still not treason until they willingly act to overthrow the government. There's really no debating this definition (but just in case you try, please provide sources).
Re:Stinkers (Score:2, Informative)
IMO your interpretation of the definition is absurdly permissive. According to this [lectlaw.com], "The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
I argue that there is indeed a war being waged by private interests against the people of the United States. All it would take is a panel of judges to agree. There is no factual stretch, other than the fact that finding honest government officials who are not already guilty of treason would be pretty freaking rare. Probably you will call this "tin foil hattery". If so, that just makes you one of the many who find denial more comfortable than truth. I'm just not wired that way, myself.
Re:Stinkers (Score:2)
Politicians are always informed and have thought things through, per job description. With great privileges come great responsibilities, and they are responsible for keeping themselves informed.
If they're uninformed or don't think things through, they collect a salary for a job they're not doing. Which isn't much better than corruption -- at least you can buy a corrupt politician, but you can't educate an ignoramus.
Re:Stinkers (Score:2)
The fact that the bill exists is evidence enough that they were wrong about the purchase of the last round of electronic voting machines. The exemption from replacement for those machines is corrupt. Not because it was added in due to campaign contributions; after all, those companies would probably love to sell the government brand new machines all over again. It's corrupt because it is a blatant act to avoid responsibility for their past (expensive) mistake.
Re:Stinkers (Score:1, Offtopic)
I cannot belive I did that! I know full damn well the correct use of "they're, their, and there." Honestly what may have happened is I changed that sentence at the last minute and didn't read closely. ... and just now I initially wrote "sentance" instead of sentence, so, uh, I've lost faith in myself.
Anyway, I think "Please, for the sake of everyone's welfare, especially our children's welfare..." is overstating it a bit, especially given my assurances it was a typo (edit-o?), not a grammar abuse.
Step #1: Organize Observers.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not convinced the votes are even being *counted* in the first place, so I think we need to have spotters at every step of the process to ensure it's fairness in the first place.
Once we have the ability to actually tell what is going on, *THEN* we can start patching the bugs.
Re:Step #1: Organize Observers.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Step #1: Organize Observers.... (Score:2, Interesting)
I would love to see them implement the e-voting, and then see some districts get hacked without a paper trail, and have a few times the number of registered voters have votes. And have it be widespread enough to not be able to be swept under the rug.
Maybe I'm just too passive aggressive and like the 'I told you so' attitude.
Re:Step #1: Organize Observers.... (Score:1)
Re:Step #1: Organize Observers.... (Score:1)
I assume the dead people, are registered regardless of their status of mortality. So say a town had 3000 live people registered, 2000 dead people, and they came back with 15000 votes. That's what I meant.
Re:Step #1: Organize Observers.... (Score:2)
You seem like a civic-minded individual. Have you ever considered volunteering in an election? Please, I'd like to know.
SENATORS introduced the bill (Score:1, Interesting)
Hold up.
I thought it was the House's job to introduce new legislation.
Re:SENATORS introduced the bill (Score:5, Informative)
Only budget legislation. Other types can be started in either branch of congress.
Re:SENATORS introduced the bill (Score:2)
Expected result. (Score:2, Insightful)
Apparently the democrats who in the past hated e-vote machines for the potential it offered the republicans to rig the vote are discovering that it can be turned to their own advantage.
I wonder how long it will be until we start seeing republicans touting how evil the e-vote boxes are?
Perhaps they will figure it out before November, perhaps not.
Re:Expected result. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's somewhat of a stretch to call Dianne Finkstein a "democrat." Sure, she caucuses with them, but she also knows that her bread is buttered by her war-profiteering military-industrial-complex-supporting husband. She's one of the more whorish "democrats" out there.
We need end to end verification (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We need end to end verification (Score:2)
Except that the article you link to seems to assume that the voting process starts with the ballot. It doesn't, because the ballot may be cast fraudulently. It doesn't stop dead people from voting (see the history of Chicago). It doesn't stop illegal aliens from voting. It doesn't stop college students and Florida snowbirds from voting in two places. It doesn't stop groups like ACORN from registering fictitious voters. It doesn't stop corrupt jurisdictions from just stuffing the ballot box.
I know the topic of electronic vote fraud is a natural for Slashdot, but the discussions tend to focus on technical aspects of potential fraud, and totally ignore the good old-fashioned methods of vote fraud, of which there are many [amazon.com], many [amazon.com] documented instances.
I need to wrap up this post so I don't have the references, but there are numerous instances of big cities (like Philadelphia) that have reported more votes than there are voting-age adults living in the city! Sometimes these votes come in oddly late in state-wide and national elections, and are just enough to tip the election.
Re:We need end to end verification (Score:1)
You do know that these examples are red herrings, right? The ACORN example [wikipedia.org] in particular was onerous enough to warrant a congressional hearing, as announcing indictments on the eve of an election is against Justice Dept procedure. In addition, the indictments were announced by interim AUSA Bradley Schlozman [wikipedia.org], who replaced Todd Graves [wikipedia.org], who was pushed out for refusing to play ball.
There is election manipulation, but it is pretty much the exactly the opposite of your suspicions. The problem is definitely not "illegals" voting for liberals. Sorry.
Also, there's no way you can use John Fund as a reference with a straight face.
Re:We need end to end verification (Score:2)
No, a red herring is something fake. These are real examples of vote fraud: for example, four ACORN people pled guilty in the case you are eager to dismiss. So there are numerous proven instances of old-fashioned vote fraud, which continue to this day. In contrast, the electronic type that many around here are excited about is still theoretical, AFAIK: no hard-to-argue proof like actual convictions in a court of law.
But hey, I'm not arguing against top-quality security for electronic voting systems. I just want the same level of security applied to all levels of the process: voter registration, requiring photo ID at the polls, etc.
Re:We need end to end verification (Score:1)
I believe your intentions are good. But the ACORN case is indeed a red herring. You may think it pedantic, but the acorn volunteers didn't commit vote fraud, they committed registration fraud, individually, while canvassing. And what the DoJ and Schlozman did was definitely against protocol and possibly illegal.
And, fwiw, I think you are misguided in looking for more security in the form of voter id laws. It is too close to poll taxes and literacy tests. Like the latter two examples from the bad old days, states and DoJ have been very selective in the way they enforce voting law.
John Fund is a partisan hack, I'm afraid. The crisis he describes doesn't exist, and the solutions to these non-problems reliably skews voter rolls in favor of his party. YMMV, but I think you will find much more useful information about the incident in the transcripts from the Senate hearings. But, again, YMMV.
Re:We need end to end verification (Score:2)
Yes, I think you're quibbling. Registration fraud can certainly facilitate vote fraud: lots of vote fraud happens when people vote multiple times under other's names. If there are fake people registered, then fraudsters can vote as the fake registrants without worry that a real person will contradict them. If you don't like the ACORN example, though, I can point to Chicago in 1960, Lyndon Johnson in 1948, and many more examples of fraud that are far more established than anything involving Diebold, etc. And if Fund's solutions "skews voter rolls in favor of his party" because it eliminates partisan voter fraud, well, I thought we were all in favor of fair elections? I'm in favor of eliminating all ways to fix elections, regardless of which party it helps or hurts.
I think are defining the problem as "making sure every vote is counted accurately," which is certainly a worthy goal. I agree, but just want to make sure it's every legal vote. Otherwise, you are ignoring a proven, fundamental, commonly-exploited hole in election security. It's as if you want to protect yourself from burglars, but focus on a narrow technical issue like the type of locks on your front door, while leaving your windows open. Even though every time burglars have struck, they've come in through your windows.
No, not the same as poll taxes or literacy tests. Proving a legal identity as a citizen is trivial 98%+ of the time. There can be plenty of ways to help poor people get ID if they don't have it. And if we require ID to buy a beer or rent a DVD, it's not a lot to ask to require it for something as important as voting.
Re:We need end to end verification (Score:1)
You raise fair points, except for this one, and I suspect it may be a misunderstanding:
My contention was that voter ID laws intimidate the poor and disenfranchised, of course.
You might be surprised by how relative the term "trivial" can be. And 2% would be problematic.
I'm not arguing for registration anarchy, of course. And really, you should consider your problem solved since Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, right? John Fund, et al, won. But you probably won't convince me that it was fair elections that Mr. Fund was concerned about.
Looks like we're just going to disagree on this one.
Re:We need end to end verification (Score:1)
Re:We need end to end verification (Score:1)
Re:We need end to end verification (Score:3, Funny)
No no dipshit, the period before the period prior to the statement "Note the Period." period before the period.
It Doesn't Matter (Score:2, Insightful)
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
Bipartisan? (Score:5, Funny)
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) introduced the Bipartisan Electronic Voting Reform Act
Bipartisan? I see the names of two republicans.
More and Better Than Feinstein (Score:4, Insightful)
Dianne Feinstein [slashdot.org] is an excellent argument for not just more, but better Democrats in Congress.
I'd say the same about Republicans, but they seem incurably hellbent on "more", and never the possibility of "better". Which has sent them spiraling towards minor party status.
Feinstein Link (Score:3, Informative)
That's a funny glitch.
Here's the link to Dianne Feinstein's [loc.gov] Senate legislative record.
Re:Feinstein Link (Score:1)
Re:Feinstein Link (Score:1)
Wow.
Is it typical for a senator to introduce so many do-nothing bills?
" A resolution designating the week beginning March 16, 2008, as "National Safe Place Week". "
Re:Feinstein Link (Score:2)
Which would you rather have, bills designating a "National Safe Place Week" or bills like FISA? I, for one, would much rather have our government wasting its time passing the former than screwing the American public and wiping their backsides with the Constitution by passing the latter. The best possible government, at least judging from what I've seen thus far, is a government so completely embroiled in a state of gridlock that they can do no further harm.
Re:Feinstein Link (Score:2)
Feinstein used her seats on both Judiciary and Intelligence to force through telco amnesty in the screwed up FISA she voted for.
Government does quite a lot of good. Your inability to realize how much government does that protects you is a measure of how good it is, and how good it is at staying out of your way. But Republicans have indeed proven their ideology that "government always fails", whenever Republicans have controlled it.
Democrats are not by any means immune from incompetence or malfeasance. But theirs is usually sustainable. An inefficient government that is better than either no government or a perfectly efficient government abusing us. Republicans are the ones that misgovern as a rule, not the exception.
Re:Feinstein Link (Score:2)
I'm well aware of Feinstein being complicit in the FISA nightmare. My point was that I'd rather have her doing useless stuff than doing that.
Re:Feinstein Link (Score:2)
Evidently, the strategy you prefer doesn't work. Feinstein can walk badly and chew gum catastrophically at the same time.
Re:Feinstein Link (Score:2)
Ah, but think about how much worse the walking could have been had she not been preoccupied with the gum.
Re:Feinstein Link (Score:2)
Democrats are not by any means immune from incompetence or malfeasance. But theirs is usually sustainable. An inefficient government that is better than either no government or a perfectly efficient government abusing us. Republicans are the ones that misgovern as a rule, not the exception.
Pull the wool back....
They're both *exactly* as bad. Sustainable? You mean like farm subsidies and social security? At least most of the stuff the Republicans have done is un-doable. (The crap our current so-called Republican president has pushed through excepted)
Re:Feinstein Link (Score:2)
They're not "exactly as bad". Democrats didn't give us the Iraq War, or the mortgage/credit debacle, or torture. Some few Democrats in the minority had some hand, but you've got to be crazy to think that Democrats are as bad as what we've had under Republicans. Democrats' problems have all been sustainable. Another few years of Republican rule, and we'd be a smoking hole in the ground. The Democratic changing of the guard at least offers the chance that we'll return to mere inefficiency, instead of catastrophe at every quarter.
BTW, calling Bush a "so-called Republican" just blew your cover. You are Republican. You voted for Bush twice, and for Republican congressmembers and governors and other representatives who knows how many times. Now that your boys have ruined everything they've touched, suddenly "they're not really Republicans". Oh, and you're probably not either, now that the damage is done - you're a "Libertarian", right?
Social Security is one of the most successful programmes, public or private, ever undertaken. It's extremely popular. You Republicans courted disaster when you blurted out your plans to privateer it into yet another stock scam. But you're still clinging to it. Libertarians love old people starving in the dark. Real Americans don't.
Re:Feinstein Link (Score:2)
There is a lot of that junk, isn't there? I think that Feinstein does a lot of that because she comes form a big state with a lot of major sports teams and headquarters of organizations that want things sponsored, plus she's at this point pretty senior and so good at getting things done. She'll do some so as to stay in the good graces of her constituents, and people in her district will come to her, other things being equal (unless, say, there is a Senator particularly tied to their cause).
Re:Feinstein Link (Score:2, Interesting)
FYI - I am in California and Im pretty sure I could care less about these kinds of "sponsorships", but then again, maybe it's because Im not part of these groups?
Im pretty sure the Berkeley men's water polo team, doesn't care that the US senate congratulated them on winning - I think the act of winning, and the trophy takes care of that.
Im fairly confidant that most Californians(at least around the major cities) don't care about things like that, and care more about her screw ups on FISA, obsession with video game violence, and the rest of her poor record.
IMO Boxer > Feinstein and I really hope we can replace Feinstein soon enough. Seeing this list influences my opinion even more
Re:Feinstein Link (Score:2)
The Berkeley men's water polo team probably doesn't really care, but the board of trustees and the alumni organization probably do. Maybe not a lot, but politicians at least seem to think that this kind of thing is good for them.
I've never been much of a fan of Feinstein, but for reasons other than sponsoring a lot of silly resolutions.
Make myself heard? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously? If those *expletive deleted*s in congress cared to hear from us they wouldn't be considering such a move in the first place.
The U.S. is literally sick in the head. It's about time we chop it off and grow a new one.
We should start by holding Bush/Cheney accountable for their crimes and punishing them appropriately, i.e. execute them.
How's this for transparency? (Score:2)
All in favor?
Party A: Aye!
All opposed?
Party B: NAY!
Re:How's this for transparency? (Score:1)
Spelling Correction ...
Party B: Bob Ney
WASHINGTON - A top House Republican on Tuesday called for Rep. Bob Ney to resign, days after the six-term GOP lawmaker agreed to plead guilty to federal corruption charges.
"He betrayed his constituents, he betrayed the body and there's no place for him in the Congress," said Rep. Deborah Pryce, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House.
Last week, Ney admitted improperly accepting tens of thousands of dollars worth of trips, meals, sports tickets and casino chips while trying to win favors for a disgraced Washington lobbyist and a foreign aviation company.
The Ohio congressman had defiantly denied any wrongdoing for months, but he reversed course and agreed to plead guilty in court papers filed Friday. Prosecutors will recommend he serve 27 months in prison.
Ney, who is under treatment for alcohol dependency, was expected to formally plead guilty in court Oct. 13.
Oh did I mention Bob Ney or Robert Ney (more accurately) introduced the Help America Vote Act of 2002, e.g. the still failed HAVA.
I'd like to believe what I told them mattered (Score:2)
But after the effort we all went to on FISA, I know better.
Another editorial mascaraing as news (Score:1)
Maybe the conclusion is correct, but I doubt it is after reading this piece. So how was this worth reading?
Paper trail/backup does not help (Score:2)
The whole paper trail effort was a waste of time, effort, and ... paper.
For vote-buying reasons, a person voting cannot have a traceable vote.
So what they can do is print it out and have you look at it.
Many places just skipped that an de-evolved back to a 4 page paper hand written ballot.
It comes from a "computers are scary" fear. Handwritten ballots are more error prone than paper backed up e-voting, and obviously other backup methods are better than a spool of paper.
(Instead of printing and showing the result, you could have multiple remote servers that you write to and verify with (but never read from)).
The core problem was never paper. The core problem was lack of transparency in the voting software, and bugs in software.
The only way e-voting can really work is with open source.
Even with 4 page paper ballots, the software problem is still there. Some software counts the ballots, and possibly scans the ballots as well.
Re:Paper trail/backup does not help (Score:3, Insightful)
Paper trails can do more than "print it out and have you look at it."
And dismissing it as a "computers are scary" mentality is just silly when you're talking about the majority of Slashdot users.
The point of a paper trail is that the paper is kept. It is available. If, for example, pre-vote polling was showing candidates A, B, and C getting about 45%, 45%, and 5% of the votes respectively in one county, but the machines registered A=45%, B=5% and c=45% instead, you could, in theory, ask for a recount. If there's a paper trail, you can look at it to see what actually happened there (Database error? Or did all the Republicans really suddenly decide to vote for the Socialist candidate instead?) Without one, you will never know.
Open source is certainly a step in the right direction. But that alone isn't enough.
Why would any Republican partner with Feinstein? (Score:3, Funny)
The Republican Party sucks. Diane Feinstein is the worst and here we have some supposed Republican guy caving into her left wing fantasies about the need for a manual paper record when no other way of tracking information has the same requirement. It's just absurd.
The Republican rank and file does not want to sit and watch its leaders hide in the shadows and take crap from these traitors. If there was to be any sort of a Republican bill on voting and vote counting, and any sort of compromise, then we should add clauses that benefit Republican concerns as well as Democrat ones and have a real compromise. For example, people that receive federal aid or federal workers should not be allowed to vote because the conflict of interest is terrible.
not surprising (Score:1)
Re:not surprising (Score:1)
There's no such thing as a verifiable "electronic vote tabulation device" and never will be.
It's impossible because the public (as in public oversight and chain of custody) can not validate electrons. They can not validate electrons because they can not see electrons.
So your not only WRONG about it being EASY, your wrong because it is IMPOSSIBLE because of PHYSICS.
Open source is great, but electronic vote tabulation devices DO NOT BELONG IN ELECTIONS, it is ABUSIVE TECHNOLOGY THAT CAN NEVER BE SECURE.
Re:not surprising (Score:1)
Re:not surprising (Score:1)
WRONG.
You love to use the noun "electronic voting."
I use the noun "electronic vote tabulation device."
BIG DIFFERENCE.
And Paper Trail is pure fucking nonsense.
It's NEVER EVER EVER BEEN COUNTED 100%! EVER. And it might as well be TOILET PAPER because with an "electronic vote tabulation device" can tell the printer to print anything the fascist programmer wants.
Let's not forget that it's TOO LATE to roll what your talking about out for 2008.
Your simply dreaming.
If you really want to be an open source advocate, design one box for each polling precinct that "assists the disabled to print a paper ballot."
Paper ballots that then follow an 100% unbroken chain of custody with public oversight 100%.
In case you forgot clarify, HAVA, 'The help America Vote Act of 2002' was authored by Bob Ney
(you remember Bob don't ya? WASHINGTON â" A top House Republican on Tuesday called for Rep. Bob Ney to resign, days after the six-term GOP lawmaker agreed to plead guilty to federal corruption charges. Small world huh..)
Continuing... HAVA, Never specified that we all needed to have "electronic vote tabulation devices." e.g. all these Optical Scanners are a cover for rigging the vote. And again I remind you that NEVER EVER HAVE PAPER BALLOTS been COUNTED 100% when there is some failure.
Where failure= glitch, burp, human error, burned up device
Problem is even to this day DRE's that assist the voter to mark a ballot are fucked up, even the Automark failed. Ask Brad Friedman [bradblog.com] about how they fucked up four votes for him.
Okay, so now you rant troll shit about the CIA? The CIA shouldn't have a fucking thing to do with PUBLIC OVERSIGHT!!!
I call your bluff, RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW.
I bet you don't even know basic electronics, programming, or common sense physics, because if you DO, then you are spreading fascist propaganda. I've listed *some* resources, you say you did a lot of research on the subject. BULLSHIT. otherwise you'd come to the same conclusion as myself. You probably don't even know Basic LOGIC.
You don't use the right language when describing specific parts of a system, or hierarchy, next larger assembly is all you preach. Your fucking MSIA doesn't mean shit. I don't have ANY FUCKING DEGREE yet I have been working with, testing, designing and repairing electronics and furthermore programming for more than 10 years. Your degree doesn't mean a fucking thing.
I'll say it again, if you really want to help, then fight against "electronic vote tabulation devices" and instead if your so open source (I don't see how with an MSIA) advocate then design a device that assists the disabled to PRINT A FUCKING PAPER BALLOT that get's hand counted, 100% chain of custody, 100% public oversight.
Re:not surprising (Score:1)
Re:not surprising (Score:1)
in the 19th century there was no need of fucking un-validatable electronics. A paper ballot with 100 Chain of Custody, and Public Oversight is all that was needed.
Fuck your fucking MSIA, and the drugged up CIA White Van it rode in on.
Your problem is that all you've been taught is from a book. Yet you still refuse to read the links I posted, therefore no honeypot is necessary to identify you. Your TROLL ACCOUNT is compromised. We already know who you are by your actions.
Fuck your Optical Scanners, DRE's, and electronic vote tabulation devices, and your bullshit. Ever since they were used they failed. EVERY TIME.
And if you did work for "the company" you shouldn't be anymore after admitting it publicly. Your compromised. Which also means your not learning from them anymore. And if you are you are a fucking MOLE!
I wouldn't hire you to design a fucking telemarketing network!
IDIOT.
And again, even if you do hold even one of the degrees you say you do, your not only corrupt your compromised.
Not the kind of "Oath" swearer I want around.
Oh "PLEASE STOP WITH THE BAD LANGUAGE" Wahh Wahh Wahh. Shut the fuck up and grow up motherfucker.
You really want to know what I want to be secure against? Motherfuckers like you who abuse electronics and technology to destroy the United States and it Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I want to secure against electronic signals being intercepted via hardware or software in our elections by ELIMINATING THAT SHIT IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE.
The only thing that will make me confident is that some dimwit like you who compromised them self, is removed from ever working with anything our Government ever does ever again.
Yeah I bet you designed the electronic voter registration book too huh motherfucker!?
Better get your supervisor to bail your ass out on this thread.
Oh that's right YOU CAN'T!
Re:not surprising (Score:1)
First, you already blew off CIA as CIA, so now you want to change it to Computer Information Assurance or some such nonsense, but you already gave the impression "The Company."
Either way, anyone with a head on their shoulders can decide who is right and who is wrong.
Computerized Voting is NOT the topic here, loss of your right to vote because of electronic vote tabulation devices is. Good luck showing us all how GRANDMA WHO VOLUNTEERS AS A POLL WORKER CAN SEE ELECTRONS. Let alone poll watchers.
IT PHYSICALLY CAN NOT BE DONE.
Regarding your "Policies and Procedures" is that where the White Van shows up and swaps the harddrives out or where they mail the fucking EEPROMS USPS and they disappear?
Quit dwelling on SOFTWARE, and go work with HARDWARE. Go make some chips. Go under the electron microscope and get back to me when you come to your senses.
Counting by hand worked pretty fucking well for 200 years!
The only place I see open source being used is for a device that prints a paper ballot to be hand counted.
Why you have to add on to that shit and tabulate electronically is because you are corrupt. There is no other explanation, knowing what you know.
Even if the code was open the hardware is NOT VISIBLE TO THE HUMAN EYE, AND NEITHER IS THE ELECTRONIC SIGNAL.
The only school I graduated from was the school of hard knocks.
You language continually leaves a CRACK.
e.g. "and if need be, the paper ballots, which are accurate because they have been validated BY THE VOTER, can be hand counted if necessary."
Blagh... Voters don't validate shit most of the time.
And second, a ballot marking device isn't needed for folks that have two arms, two legs, two eyes, two ears. It should only be used for the disabled to assist them to PRINT A GOD DAMN BALLOT.
I'm done wasting my posts on you.
YOUR WRONG. AND ANYONE READING THIS THREAD CAN SEE YOUR WRONG. Cum Laud all Ye Faithful
Go spend some time with fravia mammon etc. Get a grip on reality. I ain't here to fuck you around, I am here to put a stop to the BOHICA of our elections. Tell me you Grandma or a Poll watcher can see 1's and 0's and make sense of it and I got bridge you should invest in. Maybe you want to bid on my old textronix off eBay instead.
The difference between you and I is that I have NEVER had a complaint about the work I do. And I don't have a supervisor. I don't have rooms filled with technical manuals, chips, and parts for my publicity shot. I have them cause I know what the fuck I am talking about.
One more thing: You say, "I also guess you do not realize that making the program Open Source also protects against tampering. Since the code is open, it can be validated."
You still can't validate the DATA. And especially when someone in a White Van drives up and yanks the chip!
Re:not surprising (Score:1)
Re:not surprising (Score:1)
Then name yourself. Show us your website, or contact, or some work. If you can't do that, you are clearly the fascist propagandist I say you are
No, but you did give the initial appearance that you were. You tossed out an acronym that you didn't specify on first use, I have already figured out one out of two of your acronyms -- the MSIA. You spout off saying you have a MSIA, quickly tracking that acronym down points to a website that is "military oriented" and has a fucking "nsa approved" emblem on it, furthermore the actual class is only 18 months. So yeah I missed that. Unlike you I admit when I am wrong. But if you hadn't thrown deceptive acronyms in without defining that we wouldn't be off topic discussing this nonsense.
I don't have a degree, I never claimed one. Not that I didn't go to college.
You might have several degrees but don't know what the fuck your talking about when it comes to electronic vote tabulation devices.
Technology by itself, isn't good or bad, how it's used makes it good or abusive.
Microwaving crowds is abusive
Counting ballots electronically in secret without public oversight is abusive. (And No, watching the outside of a sheetmetal box with electronic tabulation devices inside is not public oversight)
Wiretapping without a warrant is abusive.
Loosing millions of people's personal information in databases is an abusive use.
Right, so how is 99 percent of the votes counted in secret on computers controlled by government insiders and vendors safer? It might be more effective, granted, if your stealing the election.
Instead of smoking your bushel of pot and playing World or Warcraft in YOUR MOTHERS BASEMENT, you should watch the following video [youtube.com].
Furthermore, you jam your shit into one giant un-formatted junk thread, without the slightest intent of emphasis, completely ignoring points I bring up. If it were not for the fact that some people actually believe your fascist propaganda you wouldn't be worth me wasting my time.
Re:not surprising (Score:1)
Re:not surprising (Score:1)
In the above change
You love to use the noun "electronic voting."
to
You love to use the verb "electronic voting."
Re:not surprising (Score:1)
MSIA from http://www.graduate.norwich.edu/infoassurance/ [norwich.edu]
# Complete the program online without interrupting your personal or professional life
# Earn your degree in as few as 18 months
# Experience a learning model that combines relevant theory with real-world application for immediate results
# Learn from an institution whose core values - challenge, rigor, structure and discipline - derive from the influence of a long and proud military history
18 MONTHS?
Fuck man I been working with electronics since the 1970's, this degree didn't even exist when I first started working on shit.
Well the good thing is you probably learned English better than me. But you know I could give a flying fuck. I want my country back.
Try working with hardware for years and years. Try spending a few years de-soldering the parts you need to build the shit you designed (not in a book) with a propane torch and choking on the fucking smoke. Try coming to a hardware system you never seen before and being able to fix it with no manual. Try fabricating chips, and learning that you can dope in back doors.
24 of 26 posts most nothing to do with electronic vote tabulation devices.
I say your a troll, a plant, propaganda to deceive.
I'll eat your MSIA for breakfast. You've already probably brought me your broken shit to get fixed!
The way things are happening, we might as well (Score:1)
have a "crawl forward against apathy system opacity" .... or, even "crawl forward for apathy system opacity"
Rush Holt's HR 811 Bill was CRAP what changed? (Score:1)
The last time I checked on HR 811, it had gaping holes in it. So maybe the Slashdot submitter can tell us all what's changed? Or is the original submitter just doing a propaganda spin test bubble for the uninitiated?
Holes, that allowed electronic tabulation devices to manipulate votes in secret. Holes that prevent public oversight.
But, I've noticed on Slashdot, that everyone's so god damn pro OPEN SOURCE (which I like opensource don't get me wrong.), that they don't have their heads screwed on right when it comes to elections, and are too easily manipulated by suggestion of test bubble fascist propaganda.
Using electronic vote tabulation devices
--REGARDLESS OF THE FUCKING OPERATING SYSTEM IS A NATIONAL SECURITY RISK.
The HARDWARE can be SPECIALLY CRAFTED!
And as has already been SHOWN, THE SOFTWARE WAS MANIPULATED TO RIG ELECTIONS. (hit http://bradblog.com/ [bradblog.com] and http://blackboxvoting.org/ [blackboxvoting.org] for you with the SHORT MEMORY SPAN)
And you word and punctuation nazi's...Don't talk to me about shouting in all caps, I typed it that way on purpose fucking READ IT! Start fucking listening! Even the USAF is worried about specially crafted chips (at the doping level.) We no longer have time to teach idiots about this shit we need to get rid of it by outlawing it. I fucking been shouting about this for several fucking years now, and watched the whole Constitution, Economy, and DEATHS because of these MOTHERFUCKING ELECTRONIC VOTE TABULATION DEVICES. These manufactures of this shit are domestic terrorists by proxy!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now WAKE THE FUCK UP!
Electronic vote tabulation devices do not belong in elections, it is an abusive use of technology. If you can't understand that then you are corrupt. Especially if you call yourself a technician, sysad, programmer, or hardware manufacture. The only possible way you would disagree is if you are a troll for the fascist corporations who have stolen our motherfucking right to vote!
Re:Rush Holt's HR 811 Bill was CRAP what changed? (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, but with this sort of outlook we also need to line the TV news (network, cable, all of 'em) up against the wall and execute them. For treason. Why? Because they are well on their way to overthrowing the country.
What happened in in 2000 was pretty simple. Sure, you can focus on Florida and such but pause a moment and remember how the results where announced. CBS announced that Gore won. Not "looking good for Gore", not "perhaps Mr. Gore has won", it was just "the next president is Al Gore."
People went to bed knowing that Gore won. They got up the next morning and found out the election went a little differently. Many of these people haven't gotten over the idea that because of this the election was obviously stolen. After all, their trusted news people SAID GORE WON.
Paper ballots simply cannot be counted in time for the midnight deadline for the news folks to announce the winner. They have to announce by then or their entire election coverate is pointless and nobody will watch. If nobody watches, they lose millions (or tens of millions or hundreds of millions) of dollars in ad revenue. This will not happen. Therefore, they will clearly announce a winner in order to remain relevent.
They might get lucky. After all, there is a 50/50 chance of them being right. With today's split of voters, I don't see it being much closer than that unless the results are really in. Otherwise the results announced will be based on exit polls and other information like surveys. Accurate? Probably not. But the ad revenue will remain.
If the 2008 election is announced incorrectly (again), my guess is we will see an uprising like hasn't been seen since 1917.
Re:Rush Holt's HR 811 Bill was CRAP what changed? (Score:1)
Absolutely agreed.
You get it 100%
Blood on their hands.
Meanwhile, Hit your local fascist tv station's public file with your comments. (Make an appointment if you need to.)
Protest at the NETWORK STATION. Not at the Whitehouse.
Write the FCC and complain.
Support Greg Palast's effort.
Support Public Access TV.
Produce your own show.
Defend the NET against data caps, port locks, packet manipulation, censorship, bad TOS/AUP's, TOR, and crappy ISP's that dump newsgroups.
(This is definitely the next target!)
Sorry guys... (Score:2)
But I don't see a problem with a disabled voter getting assistance to do an infrequent task like voting rather than having a special purpose automated machine for that purpose. You can choose a volunteer from any organization of your choice for assistance, making the possibility that your vote will be tampered with or inappropriately disclosed rather remote. Lets spend those tax millions on optic nerve regeneration research rather than a machine that a blind person might use twice a year.
Online voting (Score:1)
Re:You just can't win. (Score:1)
A cyber troll like you can win though by spreading fascist propaganda and completely confusing the issue.
Fact. The software has been manipulated to rig elections. (open source ain't going to help)
Fact. The hardware can be specially crafted to rig elections. (open source ain't going to help)
Fact. Paper ballots with an unbroken chain of custody and public oversight are secure. While ANY "electronic vote tabulation device" programmed by some fascist corporate programmer in secret is not.
We have been playing it your way.
Your way has destroyed America, it's Constitution, bill of rights, balance of power, economy and deaths of our military.
the Holt Bill HR 811 SUCKS DONKEY DICK.
Re:You just can't win. (Score:1)
Re:You just can't win. (Score:2)
This is probably a troll, but:
The voter gets the paper record, looks at it, then puts it into a locked ballot box. The ballots in that box are counted later for the official count, with discrepencies with any electronic count triggering a careful audit. The voter does not take anything with them out of the election area.
There have been proposals for systems by which a voter can take something with them that proves that their vote was counted exactly once but cannot show how they voted, but all of them are complex and impossible for average voters to understand.