Slashdot Mirror

> the very idea just reinforces my decision not to vote.

How will that make things better? You've gone from a chance of getting your vote counted down to none at all!

Besides, a great many states allow you to vote early or "absentee" and these all give you paper ballots. I mailed in my vote this morning, actually, and there's no way a computer glitch will make that piece of paper vanish.

So don't just complain, do something. I did!

California has term limits on it's legislature. If term limits were useful, california would have the best legislature in the country. That clearly isn't the case.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/press/2006/pr060815termlimits.htm

Ponder this question. Why are there 435 members in the House? Why not 1200?

It's not like I make you use it. By that logic, any gun shop is in deep shit by the moment they sold their first gun.

Sadly enough, people tried something similar a little while back. Thankfully, it didn't go anywhere.

This is a great thing. After I send AVG the bill for the excess bandwidth that it has caused me. This would also fall under the "Hacking laws" which states "Unauthorized access" entails approaching, trespassing within, communicating with, storing data in, retrieving data from, or otherwise intercepting and changing computer resources without consent. These laws relate to either or both, or any other actions that interfere with computers, systems, programs or networks."
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/CIP/hacklaw.htm
And for any of the websites I run I do not remember giving them permission to access those sites...
Time to post a specific statement on all websites stating that AVG does NOT have consent to access or "visit" these websites.

just my 2 cents

and no IANAL but I play one at home.

Ummm...I think you've got some (all) of your facts wrong. HR811 was a mandate, you couldn't opt in or out. That is the largest reason it was opposed by many state and local groups including the National Conference of State Legislatures and National Association of Counties (none of which are voting machine maker lobbyists). I encourage you to read their words why the opposed it. (seems like they have some decent reasons)

It starts with the "Right of privacy" law, Section 50 of the Civil Rights code:

"50. Right of privacy. A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Then goes on more in Section 51:

"Any person whose name, portrait, picture or voice is used within this state for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without the written consent first obtained as above provided may maintain an equitable action in the supreme court of this state against the person, firm or corporation so using his name, portrait, picture or voice, to prevent and restrain the use thereof;..."

"Nothing contained in the foregoing sentence shall be deemed to abrogate or otherwise limit any rights or remedies otherwise conferred by federal law or state law."

In New York the law only applies to living persons. In California, the "Astaire Celebrity Image Protection Act" protects the use of an image for 70 years after the person's death. So, if Chuck were dead, but still suing (which of course Chuck could do), he'd have to do it in California.

A certain amount depends on where he files. The article says he filed in Manhattan. New York is one of the states that has a "right of publicity" law. In New York the law only applies to living persons. In California, the "Astaire Celebrity Image Protection Act" protects the use of an image for 70 years after the person's death. So, if Chuck were dead, but still suing, he'd have to do it in California.

A report commissioned the National Governor's Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators puts the cost to the states at around $11 billion. The DHS puts the total cost at $23 billion over the next 10 years, of which $14 billion will be picked up by the states.

That actually would meet the definitions of computer hacking in many states. For example, the PA code is below. (and please don't tell me about the difference between hacking and cracking, I'm just reading the website)

"A person commits the offense of unlawful use of a computer if he, whether in person, electronically or through the intentional distribution of a computer virus:

      1. accesses, exceeds authorization to access, alters, damages or destroys any computer, computer system, computer network, computer software, computer program or data base or any part thereof, with the intent: to interrupt the normal functioning of an organization or to devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud or deceive or control property or services by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises;"

I have a method of Minnesota infrastructure maintenance that can assure sound bridges. My technique involves billing the Twins owner for the $392 million of government revenue (collected via a sale tax hike) being used to fund the new $522 million baseball stadium. My technique also involves continuing to dash the hopes of Minnesota football fans for a new government funded $0.5 billion football stadium. Instead, let the team owners rely on sports geek revenue to fund their stadiums, and misappropriate the tax revenue into infrastructure.

On the other hand, perhaps it isn't necessary to piss off all the Minnesota sports geeks (read: voters) and instead utilize the $2 billion dollar state surplus to deal with the states bridges. But alas, there are voters to buy with that money.

This is about the priorities of the citizens of a staggeringly wealthy nation being focused on everything but the infrastructure.

This bill has been bounced back and forth between the Illinois House and Senate for two years, without any final action being taken. Bill Status of HB0380 Spyware Prevent Initiative Act

Only Arkansas and Virginia have anything on the statute books, and the Virgina law has openings for the rights agencies you could drive a tank through. To begin, you have to prove "malacious intent."

2007 State Legislation Relating to Internet Spyware or Adware, An Act to amend and reenact 18.2-152.4 of the Code of Virginia, relating to computer trespass; spyware; penalty

Actually, many pesticides are at least somewhat effective nerve agents against mammals in high enough concentrations. Certain people can be extremely effected by certain pesticides over and above average reactions, too. Many of them are toxic in other ways instead of or in addition to being nerve agents in people. In the U.S., the EPA makes no suggestion that pesticides are not toxic to humans. They rate them by how toxic they are and how quickly they break down. They then clear some of them for use in certain concentrations with certain labels and certain restrictions on who can use some of them. Pesticides are known to be a danger to the nervous, endocrine, and reproductive systems. The health benefits of having higher yields and therefore cheaper prices on foods -- especially fruits and vegetables -- is often thought to outweigh the risks. This may be true when properly designed pesticides are properly used and your food is properly cleaned before you eat it. As with most things in life, though, there are trade-offs.

I, for one, have been in the emergency room for a number of hours before with what the doctors called giant hives due to exposure to pesticides. Giant hives are just like regular hives, only my hives were 2-3 inches wide, 4-8 inches long, and up to a quarter of an inch raised from the normal surface of the skin. They itch like hell, are pretty painful, they're very discolored, and they can last for days or weeks. They're caused by a number of things, but mine were caused by pesticide exposure. The doctors were monitoring to make sure my throat didn't close since I had such a strong reaction in the skin.

Lots of people are even saying that lower IQ scores, more asthma, and other health problems among children are due the amount of pesticides used in schools. ADD, Asperger's, and many of the issues that have been increasingly diagnosed are neurological in nature. Those rates may or may not have something to do with pesticides. The truth is, no one really knows what the levels of pesticides in U.S. schools is doing to kids. The EPA has guidelines to reduce exposure due to suspicion that it can't be good to have children inundated with the stuff. The state of Washington a few years ago pass a law stating that parents must be notified when there children's schools would be using pesticides. The state of New York has a nice writeup on a study it did in which it states that 87% of schools in NY used pesticides, that no pesticide be considered completely safe, and lists the more usual effects of several common pesticides and herbicides.

I live in Nebraska too.. but I thought the Senate terms stuck? 20 senators were ineligible to run again.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/ABOUT/effect s0tl-2006.htm


The petition laws were changed because we had waaaay too many out-of-state interests and companies spamming us with petitions, especially the Casinos, because their bank account for spending on it is for all intents and purposes, bottomless. Half the people that you saw hawking petitions didn't even live in Nebraska and got paid per signature! I couldn't even take a walk in the Old Market in Omaha each night without someone bugging me to sign a petition.

According to a report from the National Conference of State Legislatures, it'll cost states 11 billion dollars to comply with the Real ID act. There was no money put aside in the bill for states to comply, just a mandate to do so. California is looking to spend between 500 and 700 million dollars alone.

I'm not saying that the fine people from the states that are holding back are less than honest - some of them probably feel that privacy is important. But when your state's already facing a budget deficit - as most are - yet another unfunded Federal mandate is going to get a less than warm reception.

Compare this to Ohio, where a movie theater owner can detain you for having a video camera turned on anywhere in the building. Doing a local news expose on health conditions at the concession stand? Busted. Testing out a video camera in the local Wal-Mart, where a movie is being shown on the demo TVs? Busted. And better yet, it's a first-degree misdemeanor on the first offense, and a felony each time after that.

Other states have similarly ridiculous laws:

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/CIP/tape-in-theat ers0304.htm

And Municipal Broadband seems unpopular with states.

There is faint hope for an opportunity in the Senate Communications Act of 2006 on page 184 of which I find:

''(c) LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISION OF ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY AND SERVICES.--No State statute, regulation, or other State legal requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any public provider from providing, to any person or any public or private entity, advanced telecommunications capability or any service that utilizes the advanced telecommunications capability provided by such public provider.

There is no way the communications giants would let that pass.

"There is no equivalences to be found among those things. It's absurd to compare them"

Really? You seek to penalize responsible adults for the irresponsible acts of others when it comes to gun ownership. How does your argument differ from my argument penalizing all drivers for the acts of the irresponsible few?

The UK has tried to ban guns. Now so many people are using knives they are trying to ban them including kitchen knives.

Besides, gun violence is NOTHING when compared to causes of death

My examples regarding the Nazis, etc were there to make the point that simply taking away private gun ownership will not stop gun violence, indeed it will lead to more state sanctioned violence. America is not immune to human nature. People in power will tend to abuse it. The one and only check we have against this tendancy is an armed citizenry.

I will agree that education, and poverty programs CAN mitigate violence. What I do not agree with and what I find immoral is your assumption that it is moral and just for you to force me to fund programs which I may not agree with.

To me there is no real difference in methodology between "progressive liberalism" and neoconservatism. Both seek to enhance and use the power of the state to mold people into what they think a perfect citizen is. They merely differ on what they define as the perfect citizen.

I have no interest in creating the perfect citizen. My only interest is in leading my own life and allowing others to lead theirs with as little intrusion as possible.

According to recent legislation, they do. Many states are considering laws banning malware that collects personal information and scans victims' computers to identify and delete software, but declaring that said laws don't apply to software makers looking for illegal or unauthorized activity.

One would think that people would oppose it (text of the bill (RTF document)). But... It has passed, or is under consideration, in other states. Microsoft is not the sole originator, but a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. It supposedly "...advances the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism and individual liberty...", but actually seems more interested in making corporate policy into state law.

The Microsoft campaign contributions mentioned in the article (a slightly more readable version) are also worth noting.

Interesting. I didn't know that. That actually changes my view of it a bit - but only partly. According to National Conference of State Legislators 29 states have laws binding the rep's to vote the way they stated they would. My state (IL) does not. The states that do have laws account for 300 electoral votes, which is more than enough to have a fully legal election. However, some of those states have wussy laws, like New Mexico where apparently it is a misdemeanor and they can be charged up to $1000 which would be more than paid for by whomever bought you off for your vote anyway. This page with more Electoral info lists three elections where a single person did not vote the way they were supposed to, including one that was supposed to vote for Gore in 2000 (not that it would have mattered). Doing a bit of research I found that of the big states with 10 or more electoral votes, ten of them do not have laws governing their electoral college votes. Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. These account for 179 electoral college votes, and you need 270 votes to win the election. Apparently there's a new district system where the state can have electoral college rep's from both sides as decided by voting districts, but none of the states actually passed the law in yet. That sounds much better than our current system to me. Bush only had 271 electoral college votes in 2000. Imagine if the rep who put in a blank ballot when they were supposed to be voting for Gore had been a Bush rep, and they had gotten one other person to do it as well. I'm not saying it's likely, but the way our laws are written now it is entirely possible, and I find that to be a huge problem.

Here's a description of one in Quebec:
http://www.cafb-acba.ca/english/GetInvolved-GoodSa maritanLaw.html

Efforts in the US:
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/pubs/399HELP.HTM

I've heard of more, but it may be that some of them didn't pass or are still in progress.

Actually, your statement:

        "President is only voted for by the Electoral College, any member of whom can vote for anybody they want."

is substantially incorrect. It's much closer to your next sentence about the "all-or-none nature of each state" - 29 of the 50 states and the District of Columbia have what are called "Faithless Elector" laws, in which an elector is required by state law, and is in violation of that law, if they do not vote for the majority candidate for the state.

Further, there is no provision for apportioning electors between multiple candidates - these laws are in fact "majority rule", where all electoral votes go to a signle candidate based on the state popular vote.

Several states impose fines on electors who violate these laws, and one, New Mexico, treats it as a 4th degree felony (the penalty for a felony includes stripping certain rights of citizenship, including the right to vote in future elections, until and unless the felon is pardoned or the stripped rights are otherwise restored by an act of government).

        http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/Electora lCollege.htm

Also, your statement:

        "And the electoral college came about becuase they decided that stupid people shouldn't vote and that an intelligent person should represent their overall preference."

Isn't really that correct, although that was the rationalization used to sell the idea to the Federalists. The actual explanation has more to do with voing technology and communications delays than a plot to disenfranchise "the unwashed masses". It would have been nearly impossible, in the early days of the Republic, to communicate results from polling places to the county seat, and then to the secretary of state, and then to Washington, in under some number of months, effectively leaving us without a rubber-stamped government for large stretches of time following each election.

-- Terry

Better yet, you could use the National Safety Council:

More than 3,800 young drivers age 15-20 are killed every year in traffic crashes. More than 326,000 young drivers are injured.

Now, lets go to the cell phone issue - using the same site I used before:

A 2003 article published by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (HCRA) estimated that cell phone use by drivers may cause approximately 2,600 deaths, 330,000 moderate to critical injuries, and 1.5 million instances of property damage in America per year. The report cautioned, however, that because information on cell phone use by motorists is limited, the effects are difficult to gauge. HCRA concluded that fatalities could range from 800 to 8,000 per year, with injury estimates ranging from 100,000 to 1 million per year.

There is not enough data either way to say which is more dangerous. But I think we can say that just being young is not more of a source of risk than other behaviors many adults engage in - such as talking on a cell phone while driving.

I'm in my mid-thirties. Square that with your comment.

Try doing a little research. I believe there are no conclusive studies but the general number I have seen is that cell phone use makes you four times more likely to be involved in a crash. Check out how many accidents where it is a factor - in those states that track it. I don't know how different this is for the probablity in being in an accident and being a teenager (not using a cell phone) - but I'd wager it is not much higher.

My point is that adults have other weaknesses - like an over-estimation of their competencies due to their experience - that are as bad as those teens have. Thanks for helping me illustrate my point.

How many people do absentee votes in the U.S. (or any democratic country)?

The entire state of Oregon votes via mail. Washington State was second with a very high mail voting turnout.

A few other states, linked above, also allow "no excuse" absentee voting. Thanks to Oregon, which has shown high voter participating and no discernible fraud, the expectation is that states will gradually all go to voting via mail. (very, very, very gradually. Right now states seem to be on a fraud hunting kick, but can't seem to find it.)

"Note to politicians: Learn how to balance a budget like 99% of the country has to!"

We're not talking about the feds. TFA mentions North Dakota, Tennessee, California, Florida, Maine, Missouri and Texas. According to the NCSL, each of these states' constitutions mandates a balanced budget.

If you don't like it and live in one of these states, go bug your state legislators or go move to New Hampshire or something. Otherwise, they're exercising their Tenth Amendment rights and those of you unaffected can stuff it.

(A) As used in this section:

(1) "Audiovisual recording function" means the capability of a device to record or transmit a motion picture or any part of a motion picture by means of any technology existing on, or developed after, the effective date of this section.

(2) "Facility" means a movie theater.

(B) No person, without the written consent of the owner or lessee of the facility and of the licensor of the motion picture, shall knowingly operate an audiovisual recording function of a device in a facility in which a motion picture is being shown.

(C) Whoever violates division (B) of this section is guilty of motion picture piracy, a misdemeanor of the first degree on the first offense and a felony of the fifth degree on each subsequent offense.

(D) This section does not prohibit or restrict a lawfully authorized investigative, law enforcement, protective, or intelligence gathering employee or agent of the government of this state or a political subdivision of this state, or of the federal government, when acting in an official capacity, from operating an audiovisual recording function of a device in any facility in which a motion picture is being shown.

(E) Division (B) of this section does not limit or affect the application of any other prohibition in the Revised Code. Any act that is a violation of both division (B) of this section and another provision of the Revised Code may be prosecuted under this section, under the other provision of the Revised Code, or under both this section and the other provision of the Revised Code.

HISTORY: 150 v H 179, 1, eff. 3-9-04; 150 v S 57, 1, eff. 3-9-04.

Glad to provide the link, though it was in another post and perhaps you've found it yourself by now:
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/cip/hacklaw.htm

Here's another question. I have a wireless access point, open to the world, connected to my ISP. Since I'm paying for an ISP, I have a Terms of Use/End User Licence Agreement, whatever with them--in other words, I'm authorized to use their computer systems for routing traffic.

Now, provably (since this guy was caught), someone else uses the wireless network without my permission and connects to the Internet. They do NOT have an agreement with my ISP. Even if I can't have them arrested for computer trespass (an assumption based solely on your opinion on the matter), surely my ISP can. After all, they are clearly accessing the ISP's computers without authorization.

And in anticipation of your question, yes, that would mean that anyone other than myself who used my ISP's connection, whether wirelessly or not, is technically infringing. But as with many laws, it would only come into play if there was either mass infringement or a case like this, where the guy got arrested and the ISP wanted to make a point.

In general, cattle are stupid. In general, people who sit in front of a house with their computer accessing the Internet from an open access point nearby know what they are doing, and they probably know that the person with that access likely doesn't want them using it.

But let's take the Internet free/open bit a little further.

So I have a wireless router on my house. It's unsecured. You're claiming that somehow, this gives someone the right to connect to it. Fine. But why does it give them the right to connect to my Internet service? Simply because the router routes information by default? Rubbish.

Let's move to analogies. My property doesn't have a fence around it, so in theory, anyone can come up to my garbage can and put things in it. People without trash service could, in theory, drive up to my house with their garbage bags and place them in my trash can. Then, when my trash service comes to collect the trash, they take the other person's trash away.

Around here, that's called "illegal dumping" (laws may vary from municipality to municipality). Even though my property is open, my trash can is unlocked, and I don't have a no-trespassing sign up, I could call the cops and have someone hauled away if I caught them putting trash in my trash can.

Let's look at another example, this time with a slightly more plentiful resource than the small space in my trash bin. How about water? I have a water hose on the outside of my property. If I caught someone using it, I could have them arrested, despite my lack of a fence, surveillance, or a posted sign that says that no one is allowed to use the water.

Now in both cases above, it's pretty plausible to argue that someone has to pay for the service, and that unauthorized use of the service may cost someone money. Why isn't the same said of computers? There are plenty of ISPs around that still use metered service, and even if there weren't, anyone using my unlimited service may be infringing on my use of it if I am doing anything on the network at the time.

Regardless, it looks like laws vary from state to state.

Texas, for example, seems to side with me. If you don't have the person's consent to access their computer, it is a crime to do so.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly accesses a computer, computer network, or computer system without the effective consent of the owner.

New York, however, sides with you, as there must be a posted notice before computer trespass occurs.

I don't particularly care to go through all the laws, however there is a listing at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/cip/hacklaw.htm , and suffice it to say, I tend to side with Texas on this one. I should be able to leave my computer and network unprotected and have people assume that I don't allow access unless I give it. I'm not saying it's smart to do so, but the default status should not be, "if I can get to it, I can use it."

Of course, the catch ultimately is that, even in states like Texas, does the SSID broadcast count as consent? Possibly, but the intent behind the law seems to be that active consent is required, so it's impossible to know how such a case would be interpreted.

I happen to like European model more, but that's because I'm the one getting the bribes here ;).

That really says it all ;-}

Really, the reason I like the US system better is that the European system moves toward stagnation, while the US leans toward advancement. That way, although the rich have more stuff - if you wait 20 years, the poor have that stuff too! (For example: cars, computers, airplane trips, etc.) I'm afraid that if the European government was the only one on the planet, advancement would stop. As it is, most advancement happens in the US, Japan, and soon China - and the Europeans seem to only get the trickle downs.

Immigrants, being mostly escapees fleeing from tyrannies, cost money, not contribute it.

That may be what your media tells you, but it is not what the government says it is doing. (Please read this report, or at least my excerp in an above post) They really are bringing in immigrants to pay for the welfare or pensions of everyone else. How long do you think the immigrants will do that, once they figure out that there won't be anyone to pay for their retirement?

Does Disneyland have a Europe thingy? I guess I should visit more often...

You don't see a revolution in Europes future? Please read this report on the problems Europe is facing. An excerp: ...Germany, similar to France, faces major transitions in the nation's demographic structure and its workforce demands and, therefore, started to consider new concepts expected to alleviate negative effects of aging and workforce decline through liberalized, labor-based immigration provisions.

Read closely - Germany and France do not have enough money to pay the current retirement benefits, so they are getting immigrant labor to support them (mostly muslims, I understand). How long would you work under those conditions, before you revolted?

This took me only seconds to find - just look around!

26 states have no-excuse mail-in absentee voting. All other states allow either early voting or mail-in absentee voting under certain circumstances.

I'm sure there's some correlation between voting turnout and availability of no-excuse absentee voting. At least for the last presidential election, though, I'm not sure the correlation is clear or significant. But I really don't know. I assume someone has done some research...

You've really opened a can of worms. In essence, you've just asked "What's wrong with the US?" and you'll get a million different answers. :)

At any rate, my own personal spin is that we've managed to break our federal model of government. For example...

"Is there really that little money left over for society once the corporations have had their fill? Do they really have that much power that they can shut down municipal WiFi like I've read in previous slashdot articles?"

The problem maybe isn't so much that the corporations have so much power in state government, but that local governments and municipalities have so little. Even if the people in a city or a county were so in agreement with each other as to form a big enough chunk of the population to sway state policy, often they're gerrymandered into different districts and into obscurity in the name of creating single-party districts. Ultimately, the places that set up MuniWiFi are stuck with working through their own bunch of lobbyists. Even if the private interests don't have as much weight, they are better organized.

The same can be said about state-national relations. State policies can be trumped by the FCC for any reason whatsoever, but the states are rarely given a real voice to defend themselves. States can try to lobby Congress one way or the other, but there's only so much money they can spend on lobbying efforts without raising the ire of state taxpayers (though now I'm curious about what would happen if a state actually hired some big-name Washington lobbyist...).

The lack of communication between layers also means a lack of coordination in policies, which also helps to explain why municipalities are pushing one way while states are pushing in the opposite direction. It's not just voters watching those "Save Texas Broadband!" commercials on TV but also state legislators. And there's little reason for the state governments to listen a little more closely to municipalities when they all claim to represent the same people.

At any rate, that's my biased $0.02.

The law varies from state to state. There are privacy laws (which would not be violated here), and publicity laws (which may be being violated).

There's a whole host of rules and regulations about when you need to get permission and when you don't for photographs of people, places, and things.

A good article is here.

It seems news media usually get away with photographs of identifiable people in states with publicity laws under a fair use exemption for newsworthy reporting. In some states the publicity laws only apply to celebrities, but in others they apply to everyone (details).

They can't give to candidates. That link doesn't show a corporation giving one penny to a candidate.

From the article:

Judge Kollar-Kotelly heard that total donations to political donations from Microsoft and its employees to political parties, candidates and PACs in the 2000 election cycle amounted to more than $6.1 million.

And let's try this one.

Since 1992, Microsoft has contributed nearly $693,500 in PAC, soft money, and individual contributions to federal candidates and parties.

From the article linked:

If you commit a felony in Florida, you lose your right to vote there, and you're "scrubbed" from the rolls. You become a non-citizen, like in the old Soviet Union. This is not the case in most other states; it's an uncivilized vestige of the Deep South.

It's curious that another state, New York suffers from the same "uncivilized vestige of the Deep South".

Who is "Greg Plast" and why should we listen to him? A simple search turns up this page which lists all the US states, and if anyone takes the time to read it instead of hammering out more communists bulletins for their leftist anti-US readers, they will see that almost all US states take away felons voting rights while in prison or on parole.

Florida/Old South/Soviet Union ??? This guy is hogwash.

That's not entirely true - otherwise we wouldn't have any use for ECC or parity. Computers can make "mistakes" in as much as data can be corrupted by physical processes that having nothing to do with the intended or programmed operation.

Technicalities aside, none of the election problems are about counting accuracy, neither human, nor mechanical, nor electronic. That's not the point. All measurements have an associated accuracy. It's how we deal with it that counts. If the margin of the election is of a size that given the error rate of the system there's a "reasonable" probability that the outcome is in error (1 sigma, 13% probability of error, say, given the error rate of the technology used) then a run-off election should be automatic, even if there's only two candidates in both elections. No matter what the voting technology. A 5% threashold would be statistically supportable.

All sampling systems have a margin of error. It's a 9th grade science mistake to get an F for submitting a graph of plant growth or whatever without any error bars. We seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance in refusing to admit there's an inescapable margin of error, and thereby not accommodating for it.

In 2000, FL and several other states should have held run-off elections between W and G after the first election found them at a "statistical tie". It's not clear which way it would have gone after that, but whoever thereby won would actually have been a democratically elected president, rather than one technically appointed by a divisive judicial coup.

Anyway, the critical failure regarding DREs is the lack of recognition that they are fallible. How do we deal with critical systems that might fail? We create an audit trail so if something goes wrong, we have a chance of undoing the error, or at least figuring out what failed and fixing it, and at the very least knowing that something did in fact go wrong so we can try again.

The systems shipped by Diebold and ESS etc are both intrinsically fallible and intrinsically inauditable, which is intolerable. Further, if a voter has reason to doubt the impartiality of a company that has, for example, pledged to deliver it's electoral votes to the republican in the next election to be run on it's own vote counting equipment, they might have some reason to doubt the veracity of the black-box tallying process and that undermines the authority of democracy. It is important, therefore, even if it were proven technically unnecessary, to provide voters with the familiar indicator of fairness provided by a human-readable, authoritative, tangible ballot.

We've gone through a lot of effort convincing ourselves, and by force much of the world, that having a brainwashed electorate choose one or the other corporate flack as titular head of the country is the best and fairest form of government on the planet (and it may well be, alas); at the very least we can apply basic 9th grade science to finding out whether tweedle dee or tweedle dum won the popularity contest.

According to this page at the National Conference of State Legislatures, twelve U.S. States do their legistlative redistricting by independent commissions, with Iowa as a wildcard. And six U.S. States do their congressional redistricting via independent commissions.

According to this page at the National Conference of State Legislatures, twelve U.S. States do their legistlative redistricting by independent commissions, with Iowa as a wildcard. And six U.S. States do their congressional redistricting via independent commissions.

1. The Department of Commerce; VeriSign's contract to operate .com and .org was originally with them.
2. The Federal Communications Commission, which oversees telecommunications.
3. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications; contact the committee itself, the chairman, the ranking member, and any of the other members you'd like.
4. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, including the committee itself, the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the ranking member. Plus any of the other members you feel like contacting.
5. The Federal Trade Commission, which hears consumer complaints.
6. Your U.S. Representative
7. Your Senators
8. Your Governor
9. Your State Legislators
10. ICANN's wildcard comment address
11. Finally, complain to the media. If they get enough letters on a topic, they'll run stories. Try the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and MSNBC.

Remember, VeriSign is busy telling them its side of the story. We need to tell them ours!

1. The Department of Commerce; VeriSign's contract to operate .com and .org was originally with them.
2. The Federal Communications Commission, which oversees telecommunications.
3. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications; contact the committee itself, the chairman, the ranking member, and any of the other members you'd like.
4. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, including the committee itself, the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the ranking member. Plus any of the other members you feel like contacting.
5. The Federal Trade Commission, which hears consumer complaints.
6. Your U.S. Representative
7. Your Senators
8. Your Governor
9. Your State Legislators
10. ICANN's wildcard comment address
11. VeriSign itself
12. Finally, complain to the media. If they get lots of letters on a topic, they'll run stories. Try the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and MSNBC.

1. The Department of Commerce; VeriSign's contract to operate .com and .org was originally with them.
2. The Federal Communications Commission, which oversees telecommunications.
3. The Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications; contact the committee itself, the chairman, the ranking member, and any of the other members you'd like.
4. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, including the committee itself, the chairman, the vice-chairman, and the ranking member. Plus any of the other members you feel like contacting.
5. The Federal Trade Commission, which hears consumer complaints.
6. Your U.S. Representative
7. Your Senators
8. Your Governor
9. Your State Legislators
10. ICANN's wildcard comment address
11. VeriSign itself
12. Finally, complain to the media. If they get lots of letters on a topic, they'll run stories. Try the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and MSNBC.

According to the NCSL, Georgia requires one of:

GA driver's license, branch, department, agency or entity of the state of GA or any other state or U.S. identification, U.S. passport, employee ID with photo, student ID with photo, GA license to carry a pistol or revolver, pilot's license, U.S. military ID, certified copy of birth certificate, social security card, certified naturalization documentation, certified copy of court records showing adoption, name or sex change

So i guess photo id is not necessary but you still have to show some form of id, after which you get a smart card. They could easily tag the card to your id, photo or not. Most states do require id (to prevent fraud), but Florida and Mass. are both listed as "not specified." Maybe they could send a bunch of Democrats to Florida next year and steal the election back!

BTW, here's a nice little list of some of the state laws, just regarding the wiretap portion.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/CIP/surveillance. htm

I'm neither a Republican or Democrat but where'd you get that take on welfare? The number of people on welfare declined significantly while the Democrats were in office and that decline ended abruptly when the Republicans took office. I'd say the Republican's have done a very poor job of managing the economy since they took over.

Umm, that's not true. While most states restrict the right of the vote to those in prison or on parole, few states restrict voting rights to convicted felons. Here's a list from the National Council of State Legislatures. Only Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming have the restrictive voting rules that prohibit felons from voting without some sort of pardon from the governor or parole body.

For example, I read that the lawyers involved in the tobacco settlement ended up with about $60000 USD per hour of work. Something tells me they were overpaid, even if I fully supported suing big tobacco. Nobody works hard enough to deserve $60000 per hour.

What you read is nonsense. The settlement "requires the tobacco companies to [reimburse] state and local governments for all reasonable costs (costs and expenses for which the industry would reimburse their own counsel and agents) and expenses and in-house attorney fees associated with the tobacco industry litigation. Reimbursement will be at the market rate for hourly fees in each state." Moreover, most of the lawyers worked for the states as AAG's. Regardless of what the state took in, they took home their salaries. The remainder of the settlement -- the lion's share -- went to the states themselves, not as windfall but reimbursement. It did not go to the lawyers, though certainly it was thanks to them.