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: (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: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (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: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (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 certa
Re: (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: (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
Re: (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: (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: (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
Re: (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: (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
Re: (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: (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: (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: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (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: (Score:1)
Re: (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: (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: (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: (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: (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
Re: (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 rep
Re: (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
Re: (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, s
Re: (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
Re: (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 "trivia
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (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: (Score:1)
Re: (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: (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
Re: (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 t
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Evidently, the strategy you prefer doesn't work. Feinstein can walk badly and chew gum catastrophically at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but think about how much worse the walking could have been had she not been preoccupied with the gum.
Re: (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: (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 catastro
Re: (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: (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 vid
Re: (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: (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
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)
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 re
Re: (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
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: (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: (Score:1)
Re: (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,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (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
Re: (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 PHYSICALL
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (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 th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
In the above change
You love to use the noun "electronic voting."
to
You love to use the verb "electronic voting."
Re: (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'
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
Re: (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 w
Re: (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: (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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (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 c