Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Government News Your Rights Online

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Step Backward For Voting System Transparency

Comments Filter:
  • Stinkers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by baffled ( 1034554 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @06:11PM (#24392807)
    That's cute, TFS calls them 'stinkers'. I might call them 'all-too-common evidence of corruption in Congress'.
    • Re:Stinkers (Score:4, Interesting)

      by philspear ( 1142299 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @06:24PM (#24393013)

      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)

        by clang_jangle ( 975789 ) * on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @06:30PM (#24393089) Journal

        It is also possible they are just ignorant or haven't thought it through.

        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)

          by digitrev ( 989335 ) <digitrev@hotmail.com> on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @06:38PM (#24393165) Homepage
          Exactly. This is why I think that all legislation should be read aloud. Senators/Congressmen must pass a comprehension test proving that they actually understand the bill. Have an at-arms-length ombudsman in charge of writing and administering said test. If they fail the test, they don't get to vote. 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.
          • Re:Stinkers (Score:5, Insightful)

            by oGMo ( 379 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @07:31PM (#24393777)

            Another idea is to fine anyone who votes for a bill that is later found unconstitutional.

            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)

              by elnico ( 1290430 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @07:39PM (#24393863)

              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.

              • 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)

                • by gd2shoe ( 747932 )

                  ...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)

                  by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) * on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @09:55PM (#24395283) Journal

                  On the other hand, warrantless wiretapping is blatantly unconstitutional. It'll be overturned as soon as (if) it hits the Supreme Court

                  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.

            • by ruin20 ( 1242396 )
              we'd be holding elections every three days to replace imprisoned officials and there'd be three bills passed a year.
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by gd2shoe ( 747932 )
                Good, as long as one of them is a balanced budget. (I can dream, at least.)
              • by mpe ( 36238 )
                we'd be holding elections every three days to replace imprisoned officials

                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)

              by Red Flayer ( 890720 )

              What, it'll cause lawmaking to grind to a halt and only the most well-considered and constitutionally-sound laws to be passed?

              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)

              by AySz88 ( 1151141 )
              This isn't a good idea at all; funny, not insightful. It would throw the current checks and balances totally out of kilter. The Supreme Court would effectively become a third house of the legislature, with veto power, except appointed and holding office for life, plus allowed to throw any legislators into jail they wanted (or at least make them afraid to show up, lest that happen). Allow any one party to hold onto the other two branches for a decade or two (or an unlucky term where a majority of the just
          • by BCW2 ( 168187 )
            Test the bill not the corrupt drunks. Simple software program scans each bill, if it contains one word not in a tenth grade dictionary it is shitcanned!
            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)

              by daemonburrito ( 1026186 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @10:20PM (#24395645) Journal

              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].

              • by BCW2 ( 168187 )
                Then figure out a way to ban lawyers from Congress or Legislatures since it's a conflict of interest.
              • 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...

            • by mpe ( 36238 )
              Test the bill not the corrupt drunks. Simple software program scans each bill, if it contains one word not in a tenth grade dictionary it is shitcanned!

              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 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)

            by Prof.Phreak ( 584152 )

            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.

          • by fugue ( 4373 )
            Why just senators/congressmen?
          • by mpe ( 36238 )
            Senators/Congressmen must pass a comprehension test proving that they actually understand the bill. Have an at-arms-length ombudsman in charge of writing and administering said test. If they fail the test, they don't get to vote.

            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)

          by billcopc ( 196330 )

          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.

        • Oh, so ignorance and stupidity excuse what amounts to treason now?

          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:3, Insightful)

          by elnico ( 1290430 )

          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)

            by Anonymous Coward

            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.

            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)

              by elnico ( 1290430 )

              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)

                by Anonymous Coward

                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

      • by arth1 ( 260657 )

        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.

      • by ivan256 ( 17499 )

        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.

  • by mikelieman ( 35628 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @06:17PM (#24392893) Homepage

    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)

      by FatdogHaiku ( 978357 )
      We can watch all we want, the Electoral College [wikipedia.org] will do it's thing and decide who rules...
    • 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.

      • You mean like dead people voting, which is already happening?
        • 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.

    • by elnico ( 1290430 )

      You seem like a civic-minded individual. Have you ever considered volunteering in an election? Please, I'd like to know.

  • Hold up.

    I thought it was the House's job to introduce new legislation.

  • Expected result. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Curious, but expected.

    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)

      by GungaDan ( 195739 )

      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.

  • by linzeal ( 197905 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @06:25PM (#24393023) Homepage Journal
    We need E2E (End to End) [wikipedia.org] voting systems period. Note the period.
    • 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

      • 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.

        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

        • 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

          • 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

            • 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

              • You raise fair points, except for this one, and I suspect it may be a misunderstanding:

                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?

                My contention was that voter ID laws intimidate the poor and disenfranchised, of course.

                No, not the same as poll taxes or literacy tests. Proving a legal identity as a citizen is trivial 98%+ of the time.

                You might be surprised by how relative the term "trivia

              • by eredin ( 1255034 )
                The "people voting multiple times" issue is easily solved with a bottle of ink. I bet the ink is cheaper than all those "I voted" stickers, too.
      • As someone from Illinois, I'm proud of the dead people who were willing to return from the grave to vote! If you continue to go vote even after you are dead you are obviously a very civic minded person.
  • It Doesn't Matter (Score:2, Insightful)

    by johnshirley ( 709044 )
    What does it matter who gets to vote? The only thing that matters is who gets to count the votes.
  • Bipartisan? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @06:45PM (#24393253)

    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.

  • by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @07:03PM (#24393445) Homepage Journal

    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)

      by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )

      That's a funny glitch.

      Here's the link to Dianne Feinstein's [loc.gov] Senate legislative record.

      • I am reading and crying simultaneously.
      • 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". "

        • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          Is it typical for a senator to introduce so many do-nothing bills?

          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

          • 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

            • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

              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.

              • Evidently, the strategy you prefer doesn't work. Feinstein can walk badly and chew gum catastrophically at the same time.

                • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

                  Ah, but think about how much worse the walking could have been had she not been preoccupied with the gum.

            • by ivan256 ( 17499 )

              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)

              • 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

        • 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)

            by CMF Risk ( 833574 )

            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

            • 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)

    by Alien Being ( 18488 )

    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.

  • All in favor?


    Party A: Aye!

    All opposed?


    Party B: NAY!

    • 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

  • But after the effort we all went to on FISA, I know better.

  • Yeah, that's nothing new around here. My main gripe is that this isn't even a well-written editorial! They never support their claim. How is S. 3212 a "step backward"? How is the current situation better than it will be if S. 3212 passes? Don't answer with Holt's bill. That was in 2007, and it went nowhere, so it's not the current situation. Maybe some state has better requirements now, but if so the editorial never says so. Furthermore, the editorial would need to explain how this law law would override th
  • 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)

      by pluther ( 647209 )

      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

  • 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.

  • The goal is to steal elections. It is not surprising that they do not want verifiable voting. It is EASY to make a reliable, verifiable, computerized, voting machine. Why then, do we not require that? The answer is simple. They do not want the votes verified, because they are not the actual votes! The only reason to NOT support the verifiable machines is because you want to manipulate the vote, plain and simple. Voting machines should have a paper trail, and should be OPEN SOURCE! The source code sh
    • 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.

      • First, I wasn't talking about electrons. Second, verifiable electronic voting is indeed possible. I have done a lot of research on the subject. You are assuming that the whole process must be electronic, but this is not the case. There are several systems that have been proposed that will work, and can be verified first by the voter, and then by hand count if necessary, We are not talking physics here, we are talking about voting. There are some very easy ways to do it. As far as security, this is wh
        • WRONG.

          You love to use the noun "electronic voting."

          I use the noun "electronic vote tabulation device."


          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,

          • Wow, now we degenerate into name calling and swearing. Incredible. My degree is worth nothing, eh? At least I know what CIA IS. I don't mean the agency. But then again if you had gotten a degree you might know that. You have been working with systems for years, yes? I know many people in your shoes that have been doing it WRONG for years. I assume you may very well fall into that category, since you can not come up with a way to make a system like this work effectively. You see, what my degree dis
            • 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

              • 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

              • Wow, you really are simple, aren't you? I have been in the fight against the current electronic voting machine for years. You have apparently been working with conspiracy theories and smoking pot by the bushel full for years, because you can not understand simple logic. I never said I worked for the CIA. I even said I was not referring to the Central INtelligence Agency. I was referring to the CIA principle in INformation Assurance. Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. You really could not u
                • I have been in the fight against the current electronic voting machine for years.

                  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

                  I never said I worked for the CIA.

                  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

                  • Hmm, MY fascist propaganda? If you stop and look for a minute you will realize that I agree with you on a lot of points. The current system is set up for only one purpose, and that is to manipulate the vote. How could it be otherwise, especially when they refuse to fix it? The CEO of Diebold himself said he was committed to delivering the vote for the Republicans. Sorry you didn't know what I meant by CIA. It was late and I was tired, but I immediately stated it wasn't the CIA you were thinking of. Y
          • In the above change
            You love to use the noun "electronic voting."
            You love to use the verb "electronic voting."

        • 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'

  • have a "crawl forward against apathy system opacity" .... or, even "crawl forward for apathy system opacity"

  • 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)

      by cdrguru ( 88047 )

      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

      • 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!)

  • 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.

  • If this is the road we are trudging down, we might as well just add online voting to complicate things. Then maybe the need for security through transparency will be more apparent.

Did you hear that two rabbits escaped from the zoo and so far they have only recaptured 116 of them?