Slashdot Mirror

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6043

It's not just the fucked up unconstitutional legislation, it also the fascist media. So when you say get the word out, that's gonna be tough because they blacklist what they don't want to get out, or they spin issues, or they "air" pure propaganda coming from the Whitehouse or the Pentagon.

I don't agree with giving these oath of office breakers anymore more power. None, until they can prove to the citizens of the United States what power they already have is not being misused. They need to open up, and stop using "state secrets" as a cover for their treasonous acts.

To date, there has been no accountability.
There won't be tomorrow either until we regain control of our out of control government.

To date, honest people have warned the FBI about nukes. Lookup Sibel Edmonds why was she gagged? To protect the corruption.

In addition to EFF and EPIC, I also suggest Bradblog (voting integrity advocates) Seems a lot of technical folks out there still don't get it, you can't tabulate votes electronically because there can not be public oversight of the invisible electronic signals--fuck linux, fuck unix, fuck windows--the operating system is irrelevant. I love all three! But to use them to tabulate votes electronically is an ABUSE of technology!

Now the FBI want's this and want's that. Maybe after they do their job and start carrying out all the "officials" who have broken their oath of office. Maybe after citizen oversight of all these spy agencies is in place to stop political motivated crime. Until then NO.

Fuck what they want.

EXACTLY, the hard drive failed and we replaced it with a new one. We lost the logs with it.

Now get over to your DC hotline and give the bastards and bitches an ear full. Or Sit on your ass's and drink another beer and watch while another election goes up in smoke.

How depressing that my country is experiencing 3rd world style voting problems 200 year after establishing democracy. Citizens having trust in elections is the fundamental backbone to a democracy. I'm further amazed that voters aren't outraged and up in arms over this. This should be THE most important platform issue in our current presidential elections.

Check out this article and you'll get really get upset about some electronic voting machines in use.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4066

That is why Sequoia sued all of the Princeton CS Profs and hired some drunk named Mike Gibbons to do the same thing that the Profs were going to do for free:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5849

The profs may have come up with their own conclusions, instead of just signing the ones that were handed to them the first minute they walked onto the job. - There's your problem.

Perhaps this was meant as a "Sarcastic" post.
If there's any confusion let's clear it up now shall we.

The Citizens of the United States no longer have the luxury of fucking around with these lies and propaganda anymore, everything is at stake since these electronic voting machines are the "spark of life" that was needed to begin the negative downward spiral of the destruction of the constitution, the corporate media, the judicial, the executive, the senate, the economy and the delivery of the United States directly into the hands of fascism. All you need do is compare the Constitution before this administration to the constitution after this administration to understand what these oath of office breaking criminals are up to.

Who ever marked this as funny might want to understand that "Election Technology Council" is made up of the manufactures of these fucked up machines. Which is the same as the fox guarding the hen house. It's very similar to the ACVR saying that there's voter fraud. (When in fact there wasn't and isn't) and that also the ACVR was only a fucking MAILBOX address, and that the damage they did exists to this very day as propaganda, misinformation, and lies. There's nothing funny here. These electronic vote tabulation devices, broken chain of custody, voter roll purging have cost our veterans their lives.

Furthermore, out in California Secretary of State Debra Bowen's Top-To-Bottom (which truly was independent) review resulted in every machine being de-certified because they all failed miserably.

Perhaps this was meant as a "Sarcastic" post.
If there's any confusion let's clear it up now shall we.

The Citizens of the United States no longer have the luxury of fucking around with these lies and propaganda anymore, everything is at stake since these electronic voting machines are the "spark of life" that was needed to begin the negative downward spiral of the destruction of the constitution, the corporate media, the judicial, the executive, the senate, the economy and the delivery of the United States directly into the hands of fascism. All you need do is compare the Constitution before this administration to the constitution after this administration to understand what these oath of office breaking criminals are up to.

Who ever marked this as funny might want to understand that "Election Technology Council" is made up of the manufactures of these fucked up machines. Which is the same as the fox guarding the hen house. It's very similar to the ACVR saying that there's voter fraud. (When in fact there wasn't and isn't) and that also the ACVR was only a fucking MAILBOX address, and that the damage they did exists to this very day as propaganda, misinformation, and lies. There's nothing funny here. These electronic vote tabulation devices, broken chain of custody, voter roll purging have cost our veterans their lives.

Furthermore, out in California Secretary of State Debra Bowen's Top-To-Bottom (which truly was independent) review resulted in every machine being de-certified because they all failed miserably.

I'm not familiar with the situation, but Brad came to the rescue. Apparently, these machines screwed up during another vote. As you read the rest, it seems to be a total train wreck ... perhaps the state can sue?

Now you are just coming out completely biased.

That's the problem you wingnuts in a nutshell: if you don't agree with the facts, you scream bias. For gawds sake, Fox just labeled McCain a Democrat, after doing the same to Alen Specter and Tom Foley. You're a Gooper and get in trouble or displease the wingnut base, you get labeled a Democrat by Fox News.

FOX was the only television news outlet to report on the Obama Madrassa scandal. Sure, it turned out they made it up, but still.

So the other networks are bad because they fail to report made up news? Hmm.

They have also recently hired Karl Rove as a commentator (I'm serious), further proving their alliance to objectivity.

Ah, I see. Good boy, now good back to your bridge.

... there appears to have been massive voter disenfranchisement in California. Julia Rosen's Count Every Vote in Los Angeles on Crooks and Liars (also on Courage Campaign's site) and Double Bubble Trouble on Brad Friedman's voter rights blog are both following this.

Hmm, I seem to recall this story from somewhere...it sounds somehow strangely familiar...almost as if this exact thing had occurred before...

Oh, that's right, this story was covered -- right here on slashdot, no less -- a year ago, complete with a link to the very same now-year-old blog post, which was significantly updated at the time, and caused Diebold to remove the photo in question! (A very generic key form was used.) Might want to update this post...

Archives - January 2007 should be a clue. Or at least one would hope.

While you guys are at it, can you fix your patently incorrect story about Iran being "offline", when it clearly and provably isn't, thereby negating the main premise of the story? You know, since no one seems to care about anything sent to the on-duty editor email.

Slashdot is really on fire today!

Hmm, I seem to recall this story from somewhere...it sounds somehow strangely familiar...almost as if this exact thing had occurred before...

Oh, that's right, this story was covered -- right here on slashdot, no less -- a year ago, complete with a link to the very same now-year-old blog post, which was significantly updated at the time, and caused Diebold to remove the photo in question! (A very generic key form was used.) Might want to update this post...

Archives - January 2007 should be a clue. Or at least one would hope.

While you guys are at it, can you fix your patently incorrect story about Iran being "offline", when it clearly and provably isn't, thereby negating the main premise of the story? You know, since no one seems to care about anything sent to the on-duty editor email.

Slashdot is really on fire today!

other sources of interest:

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, and a partner in Cannistraro Associates, an international security consultancy, has written a reasonable, fairly current (news changes daily) summary which will appear in the next issue of Pat Robertson's American Conservative. It can already be read online here

Daniel Ellsberg has an oped at Brad Friedman's Bradsblog. He has called "what Sibel has as more explosive than the Pentagon Papers" do read his oped here The latest is here

Another good source is Steve Clemon's The Washington Note, where i mostly post my $0.02 worth The relevant post is here . And finally lukery's "let sibel speak" blog is here

other sources of interest:

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, and a partner in Cannistraro Associates, an international security consultancy, has written a reasonable, fairly current (news changes daily) summary which will appear in the next issue of Pat Robertson's American Conservative. It can already be read online here

Daniel Ellsberg has an oped at Brad Friedman's Bradsblog. He has called "what Sibel has as more explosive than the Pentagon Papers" do read his oped here The latest is here

Another good source is Steve Clemon's The Washington Note, where i mostly post my $0.02 worth The relevant post is here . And finally lukery's "let sibel speak" blog is here

The original article is just blatant b.s. Here's what the Kucinich campaign sent to the NH SoS: Image Link. The guy who paid for the recount thinks it proves that NH can't be trusted to count votes.

I'm baffled that so many citizen commentators are eager to conclusively report no malfeasance in the NH primary. As a voter, I'd assume the bias of your average citizen blogger would favor transparent and closely scrutinized treatment of the recount process - not a burning desire to proclaim "All Clear!" well ahead of any reasonable period for investigation.

No, seriously, what is the incentive?

Might want to look at the recount table again:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5598
(hint: scroll to the bottom of the article)

Does the OP's "nothing to see here, move along" conclusion consider evidential violation of federal voting law vis. failure by of the NH SoS to secure machine memory cards post-election?

First of all, the Republican ballots haven't been counted yet. Secondly, Kucinich ran out of money so not all of the ballots on the Democratic side were counted. Not only that, but the chain of custody for the ballots was severely lacking. It would be alomst impossible to prove fraud when you can't fully account for where the ballots were and everyone who had custody of them. There were lots of discrepencies in the diebold counted places. Simply check out http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ and http://www.bradblog.com/ and you'll see how incredibly bad NH was.

The Republican ballots won't even have started to be counted for a few days. More money was donated to the 3rd party candidate to make the recount (mostly Ron Paul supporters through the Granny Warriors). There were at least two cities in NH that reported 0 votes for Ron Paul, then magically found them the next day when it was pointed out to them that people voted for him there (all by accident, of course).

The fact that the diebold ballots were so far off is very troubling, considering they make ATM's which don't miss a penny and are virtually fraud proof (not to mention there is a paper trail). LHS Associates, who counted 81% of the votes in NH also have an executive who was convicted of narcotics trafficking. It was also LHS Associates who handled a lot of the ballots after the voting was done. They can't use the Fry defense "Don't blame me, I'm a non-voting felon." They're vote counting felons.

Anyone who gets their votes counted through a Diebold machine should get stickers saying "I think I voted."

Well, she already did. And, as one might expect, both Dems and GOP'ers have been implicated.

The Times declined to name names, even though she said she would. Edmonds has provided a "rogues gallery," of the perps -- uh, sorry, alleged perps -- which includes Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Dennis Hastert, Brent Scowcroft and Marc Grossman, who is described in the Times article as a "well-known senior official in the US State Department."

For the most part, this activity appears to have been driven by pure avarice, selling accessible, desired product (nuke "secrets," arms, drugs, etc), with the perps pocketing cash.

By the bye, here is the latest statement from Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame.

Well, she already did. And, as one might expect, both Dems and GOP'ers have been implicated.

The Times declined to name names, even though she said she would. Edmonds has provided a "rogues gallery," of the perps -- uh, sorry, alleged perps -- which includes Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Dennis Hastert, Brent Scowcroft and Marc Grossman, who is described in the Times article as a "well-known senior official in the US State Department."

For the most part, this activity appears to have been driven by pure avarice, selling accessible, desired product (nuke "secrets," arms, drugs, etc), with the perps pocketing cash.

By the bye, here is the latest statement from Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame.

Sorry to link to a blog, but it links to what I think are a couple of good articles on this and it brings up a good point. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5582

This is not a new story. I'm in the US and I haven't heard anything about this before now. There was a big article on the front page of the Times that covered this two weeks ago. I didn't get a clear picture of what administration the secrets-selling went on during (it looks like it has been 10 years or so), but the Times article indicates all the covering-up has gone on during the last several years. Bad news...

For example: oh, he's so tired of all these silly internet amateurs, just imagine what the rest of the election process is going to be like! And: all these guys are just trying to make a name for themselves. (They're not, for example, nervously checking to see if there's any hope that the American Republic is intact.)

He informs us that he doesn't think there was any election fraud here, but doesn't bother to enlighten us as to why (his reasons are "too vague").

One of the links he points to is particularly funny: Robert Hansen. Here Robert Hansen is plugging through the statistical analysis, turning up a significant correlation on the counting technique and not on the other possible variables, but he remains convinced that this must be wrong... and is in the process of actively looking for "sources of error" to fix the results.

Anyway: if you're interested in this subject, I suggest keeping an eye on Brad Friedman's bradblog.

(By the way: why are people assuming this would have to be Hillary's fault? A "republican dirty trick" theory would seem a little more likely to me: kill the momentum of the front-runner, sew dissention in the ranks, maybe steer the primary toward a more defeatable candidate... why not?)

Kristoph wrote:

It's important to note that in all these precincts the exit polls agreed with the actual results.

Where the hell did you get that?

In any case, after the 2004 election, the Edison/Mitofsky polling firm was so embarrassed by their exit polls contradicting the official results, that they adopted a new policy of hanging on to the results until the official results are in, and using those figures to "correct" the exit polls before releasing them. (You got that? I wish I were kidding, but I am not.)

Now, take note of this story by Brad Friedman: Chris Matthews: Raw EXIT POLL Data 'Indicated Significant Victory' for Obama in NH 'Was Ahead an Average of 8 Points, Even in Our Own Exit Polls': "Even the Exit Polls showed that Obama should have won, according to Chris Matthews on Hardball today. It's the first specific indication that we've seen that the raw, unadjusted Exit Poll data, which only corporate mainstream media folks, not mere mortals, are allowed to see, confirmed all of the pre-election polling which predicted an Obama win."

The exit polls already suggested a very tight race

As far as I know, the "exit polls" reported in the press are weighted based on the current results in order to match the likely outcome. The raw data is not released to the public--if you have access to it, there are a lot of people who'd like to know!

According to Chris Matthews, host of TV's Hardball, the exit polls indicated a win for Obama:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5535#more-5535

The exit polls did not match the results.

The exit polls were made to match - "corrected" - with the results of the vote. Because of the untestable, ever-present assumption in the US that any discrepancy between exit polls and the election results represent bad polling.

If there's any argument for the legitimacy of these results that doesn't depend on simply assuming that our elections are always accurate, I haven't seen it. So who's the gullible idiot, again?

The exit polls were as accurate as usual.

That doesn't seem to be the case.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The deviation in exit polls was well reported yesterday.

Here's a reference, too lazy to find you an official source. I've been watching a ton of news coverage since the primary. I could care less about pre-election polls, since frankly there's a known issue with white voters having voter booth second-thoughts about black candidates. The exit polling is my only concern since its reliability is so much more accurate.

... the the pre-election pollster's numbers (NOTE: that's not Exit Polls, but Pre-Election Polls!) were dead-on, for the most part, on the Republican side, as well as on the Democratic side. Except in the do-or-die (for Hillary) Clinton v. Obama race.

... the difference between the Obama poll level and the Obama vote total level seems to just be your basic statistical variance. The pollsters underestimated Clinton's level of support. People who were undecided as of the last round of polling seem to have gone overwhelmingly in her direction.

So where did her votes come from, if Exit Polling data showed, as mentioned by MSNBC ..., that last minute deciders broke evenly, and even a bit more for Obama??

* All voting systems made by Election Systems & Software, Inc. (ES&S), both paper-based optical-scan and DREs, were completely decertified. Their op-scan systems tested, according to Coffman, "both failed because of an inability to determine if the devices work correctly and an inability to complete the testing threshold of 10,000 ballots due to vendor programming errors." Their ubiqutous, and fatally flawed iVotronic DRE system "failed because it is easily disabled by voters activating the device interface, and the system lacks an audit trail to detect security violations."
        * Paper-based optical-scan systems made by Sequoia Voting Systems were conditionally certified, while their DRE systems were completely decertified for use, as they "failed due to a variety of security risk factors, including that the system is not password protected, has exposed controls potentially giving voters unauthorized access, and lacks an audit trail to detect security violations."
        * Paper-based optical-scan systems made by Hart Intercivic were decertified "because test results showed that they could not accurately count ballots"(!), while their DRE voting system was conditionally certified.
        * And finally, both optical-scan and DRE voting systems made by Diebold/Premier were conditionally certified for use in Colorado.

Computing dot whatever ain't been kicking ass and taking names and telling like it fucking is like BRADBLOG has! http://bradblog.com/ DONATE We been saying all along the answer is paper ballots hand counted with public oversight.

And they can build voting machines that way too, if their customers ask for them. Again, that's a policy and procurement issue at the election board level.

And when the equipment vendor is the one telling election boards what their policies should be, how do you address all of the shrill people who scream that Diebold is running the elections?

A some what reasonable response but this is too much along the lines already set by Bush & Co.

1) If it's good news, it's thanks to Bush's hard work.
2) If it's bad news, it's thanks to Democrats.
3) If Democrats can't be blamed, then cover it up, misinform, and otherwise do everything but take responsibility.

In other news, political party that says the government is the problem and can't do anything right proves their point. Full story after the break.

Well gosh. Here it is a day later, and Diebold is trying to skulk into staying in business by changing its name. Don't worry Diebold, the word will spread FAST.

More than anything, however, the move may well be a harbinger of a coming declaration of bankruptcy for Diebold/Premier, as we see it. With the unit now spun off from the blue chip Diebold parent, declaring bankruptcy or dissolving the company altogether might be less trouble for investors and the main company as a whole, as their extraordinary legal and financial liabilities continue to mount...

• Media articles linked to by the Daily Voting News
• Why Tuesday

More than anything, however, the move may well be a harbinger of a coming declaration of bankruptcy for Diebold/Premier, as we see it. With the unit now spun off from the blue chip Diebold parent, declaring bankruptcy or dissolving the company altogether might be less trouble for investors and the main company as a whole, as their extraordinary legal and financial liabilities continue to mount...

• Media articles linked to by the Daily Voting News
• Why Tuesday

"Any time you hear the United States Government talking about wiretap, it requires --- a wiretap requires a court order." - G.W. Bush

>I don't know why I am arguing the same thing with you twice on different threads

Because instead of sound legal argument, you feel the need for ad hominem attacks?

>...find the historical versions and you will find that to even listen to the domestic side, they needed the warrant.... Under the law at the time, they would need to get a warrant either before or after the call and show enough reason to be listening.

Again, you contradict yourself. When you write "after the call" you are conceding that the warrants could be retroactive. And let me note also the penalty for having the retroactive warrant denied is nothing (assuming, one presumes, a good faith warrant application, which is not an issue here.) There is no evidence that terrorists changed their behavior because of warrant requirements.

>who told the president it was legal to do so i the first place? Well, that would be the president's legal council which is outside the justices department.

The president counsel (note spelling) is his private lawyer. If your private lawyer tells you that a violation of the plain text of a statue is legal and the U.S.A.G. says it is illegal, then you go to jail. Thank You For Playing!

>when ... the justice department makes changes so it is legal, then I guess it was legal.

When you state that the justice department made changes to make it legal, you are conceding that it was not legal in the first place. Q. E. D.

>no, this isn't a matter of a soldier on duty in Baghdad, they keep their addresses and vote with an absentee ballot

Yes, in fact "caging" is all about that; your denial maybe based on not knowing that Tim Griffin sent a spreadsheet of black soldiers on a FL base to the White House mailbox for the purposes of challenging their absentee ballots. Don't you agree that this is wrong, illegal and not very supportive of the troops?

>I'm not aware of what Ann Coulter does.

OK, so you are not well informed as to contemporary issues in voter fraud. As reported on many places including Fox and in more detail elsewhere, Ann Coulter registered to vote at an address where she did not live, never had lived, and never intended to live. Do you like that?

>The president is claiming that the law didn't apply in this situation because he found powers in the constitution that preempt them

Precisely correct; he committed felony violations of FISA and other laws, and claims he has constitutional sanctions for them. His naked claim (opposed by the Justice Department) dos not make his felonies legal.

>your inaccurately claiming we have a democracy....we are a republic and not a democracy

The distinction between a republic and a democracy does not affect (please consult your dictionary as to the difference between "effect" and "affect") felonies? Surely republics require public officials obey the law.

I'm looking at the links you sent, and comparing them to the EFF page, on HR 811 and I think you are being misled.

The Brad Blog you link to has a porn ad at the top, a bunch of attempts to discredit people by assocation, and poorly photoshopped heads of various villains. Their article on the bill doesn't say anything bad about the bill itself: It just says that it isn't as good as the original bill that was proposed. That's not a reason to vote against the bill. In some cases it directly conflicts with the EFF's reading of the bill. Brad's blog says that HR 811 "prohibits" disclosure of the source - while the EFF's reading says it "allows" disclosure if the states choose to do so, which is no worse than what we have now. I believe the EFF reading is correct.

The Election Defense Alliance page makes a good use of red, white, and blue colors to look patriotic. But they seem to do nothing other than name calling using things like "The Patriot Act of Elections" which doesn't add any meaning to the discussion. I suspect that this page is a phony grassroots page. For example, in their Article on HR 811 under section 7 they explain how releasing the source code doesn't improve security. Any Slashdot reader can see through this logic. Several of the points in the article are listed under the "misconceptions and misrepresentations" section of the EFF article. That is another reason I suspect the Election Defense Alliance articles to be phony - they seem to be scaremongering.

I'm looking at the links you sent, and comparing them to the EFF page, on HR 811 and I think you are being misled.

The Brad Blog you link to has a porn ad at the top, a bunch of attempts to discredit people by assocation, and poorly photoshopped heads of various villains. Their article on the bill doesn't say anything bad about the bill itself: It just says that it isn't as good as the original bill that was proposed. That's not a reason to vote against the bill. In some cases it directly conflicts with the EFF's reading of the bill. Brad's blog says that HR 811 "prohibits" disclosure of the source - while the EFF's reading says it "allows" disclosure if the states choose to do so, which is no worse than what we have now. I believe the EFF reading is correct.

The Election Defense Alliance page makes a good use of red, white, and blue colors to look patriotic. But they seem to do nothing other than name calling using things like "The Patriot Act of Elections" which doesn't add any meaning to the discussion. I suspect that this page is a phony grassroots page. For example, in their Article on HR 811 under section 7 they explain how releasing the source code doesn't improve security. Any Slashdot reader can see through this logic. Several of the points in the article are listed under the "misconceptions and misrepresentations" section of the EFF article. That is another reason I suspect the Election Defense Alliance articles to be phony - they seem to be scaremongering.

I don't doubt that the original author of this bill was well intentioned (there was so much to fix about HAVA, after all), but this bill is not the answer, and it's _not_ good. We don't want computers enshrined as the method of resolving or counting votes. The Canadian (and the Europeans, e.g., the Swiss) have it right. Paper ballots that are manually marked that _anyone_ can verify are the right approach. Slashdot is what got me involved in this issue originally, and it's thanks to the skepticism of computer professionals that we know how bad these systems are.

This bill is being called the "Patriot Act of Elections"...be sure to get all the facts before you decide it's a good thing, and I'm sure you'll decide it isn't. Here are two great resources to start with:

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/

http://www.bradblog.com/

(and in particular on the Brad Blog, check out Ellen Thiesen's analysis of problems with this and the Senate bill currently being worked on)

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4678

I don't doubt that the original author of this bill was well intentioned (there was so much to fix about HAVA, after all), but this bill is not the answer, and it's _not_ good. We don't want computers enshrined as the method of resolving or counting votes. The Canadian (and the Europeans, e.g., the Swiss) have it right. Paper ballots that are manually marked that _anyone_ can verify are the right approach. Slashdot is what got me involved in this issue originally, and it's thanks to the skepticism of computer professionals that we know how bad these systems are.

This bill is being called the "Patriot Act of Elections"...be sure to get all the facts before you decide it's a good thing, and I'm sure you'll decide it isn't. Here are two great resources to start with:

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/

http://www.bradblog.com/

(and in particular on the Brad Blog, check out Ellen Thiesen's analysis of problems with this and the Senate bill currently being worked on)

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4678

The scoop: HR-811 does a lot of good things, but it doesn't go far enough. "Paper Trails" are not the same thing as "Paper Ballots".
Read on for more details.
http://bradblog.com/

• Portable reader
• Computer
• Blank card/chip
• Writer interface

• A camera that can see wavelengths that are transparent to clothing (for a key in a pocket) or just a camera with a good zoom lens (for a key sitting out)
• Micrometer
• File
• Key blank

If you read the article you would also see this image: http://www.bradblog.com/Images/DieboldKeys.jpg

The simple, less deadly, less costly answer is.

Paper Ballots Hand Counted

Bradblog
Black Box Voting

WAKE THE FUCK UP!

At one time we had this. Then, it went away and Clinton's Penis became the #1 news item of all time ever. Now, the nation's most popular news channel is brashly biased and continuously deceives, quantifiably damaging the electorate's understanding of their government and the world around them.

Excuse me, but I'd rather see the last 9 years of TV media "improvement" reversed. You imply that the leading political party would have complete control over the application of the fairness doctrine - this is in fact not the case. If this new doctrine were enforced by the FCC, under a clear and concise rubric, it would allow little room for the quashing of certain points of view - seeing as how it stipulates that conflicting points of view must necessarily be presented.

How about, when Mark Foley got caught, Fox News labeled him either as a Democrat, or failed to label him at all:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3570

The headline of the post makes it seem like the NIST thinks that paper trails are the answer. That is not their conclusion, in fact they say the current paper-trail systems don't work.

"The NIST is also going to recommend changes to the design of machines equipped with paper rolls that provide audit trails.
Currently, the paper rolls produce records that are illegible or otherwise unusable, and NIST is recommending that "paper rolls should not be used in new voting systems."

via http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3860#more-3860

We really should just use optical scan ballots. That is a paper trail voters have to verify, and the ballots can be meaningfully recounted. Then Diebold and the other vendors should be sued for knowingly selling defective products--possibly fraudulently.