Slashdot Mirror
BSD And Politics
qbasicprogrammer writes: "At Daily Daemon News, Josh Pennell says the Reform Party's National Primary Online Election was constantly under attack during the 72-hour election window, however IOActive (the Reform Party's hosting service)'s OpenBSD server kept the kiddies and crackers away. According to the reader comments, Ralph Nader is using BSD/OS, as is the Libertarian Party Web site. It's nice to see political parties believe in freedom of software."
In my view it dosn't matter what is in place or how noble or enlightend or great it is... It's been in place for about 40 years and it hasn't worked. At some point you have to say "Enough" and try again.
Welfare was a great idea but it was made to save the United States during the depression. It did the job. Maybe not elegently but it worked.
The problem is this quickfix was extended for decades. It should have NEVER run this long. It stopped working in the 1960s and thats becouse it was in place far to long by that time...
It worked.. it worked well.. It it's not a long term solution.
The education system was ment to be the long term solution. However from my point of view it seems many school adminstraters learnned they get more money when the schools don't teach than when they do. Rewarded by falure.
This was never so hilighted as when the local school administation gave themselvs rases when the voters gave the schools more money. In short the voters voted for a pay rase and didn't even know it untill it was to late.
Russia dosn't have this problem. No democracy.
The problem is people like our friend here would run screamming with hands over ears when ever anyone said anything bad about the school system or welfare. They prefer the narrow mindedness of supporting the status que.
Anyone who challanges welfare.. shows it to be a failure.. is branded anti-poor.
Anyone who challanges the school system is similerly branded...
No you can't have a valid consider and be against me... nooo you have to be evil... the dark side... darth vader...
And then there are people who just want to lable Slashdot... throw around stuff becouse they want open source to be in one political camp.
They can't stand to realise... a politican canidate who has been STRONGLY open source... Ralf Nader... is NOT Libertarian but a member of the Green Party... A very very propoverty...
Oh.. and as for consern... want consern? Your are gona love this.... Now I love the green party supporters to death and they are all great people and really have huge hearts... so don't mistake what I'm about to say...
But the green party party line views the poor as a ecological desaster...
Yeah.. and amazingly enough the Green Party cares more about the poor than any other party but the offical line lables them not as a human or socal consern but an ecological one...
Oh well... you really can't read the minds of the people by party lines.
I don't actually exist.
Libertarians cut across the left/right spectrum with solutions that appeal to everyone.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Or
;) Or that the LibDems (who you'd have to be pretty paranoid to smear at a national level) wanted to rush the UK into a European superstate with no more sovereignty than a US state.
:(
d) Stop ballots. If you can (somehow) get at the boxes between the polling stgation and the counters, you can disrupt it that way.
OTOH, you don't necessarily have to go to this sort of trouble. The percentage of the population who actually know what the issues and positions are on pretty much anything is _tiny_. Over here, there's been several surveys showing both a public demand for longer prison sentences and a severe underestimation of what sentences were actually handed out. Go figure...
If you have a reasonable amount of power, the easiest thing to do is to get misinformation out into the halfway trusted mass-market newspapers. In the UK, say the Labour party want to put up taxes lots to make prisons more comfortable and give all new entrants to this country triple benefits. Or the Tories want to, erm, make all education private? Actually, it's getting pretty difficult to come up with something implausibly extreme for Hague to say, he's gone so far right
Let's jump the pond. Bush could say that Gore wants to drastically reduce the size of the military, or Gore that Bush wanted to remove all social protection legislation. Whoops, probably a little close to the bone there, too...
Anyway, you get the idea. Once you have any degree of media influence, by far the most effective way to disrupt an election is to affect the casting of votes by getting the public to believe utter rubbish. It's rather sad quite to what extent some trust the media
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Libertarian Party no(ish) to MS breakup
BSD/OS is definitely not BSD licensed -- it's a derivative of 4.4BSD that in its turn is a mix of BSD-licensed and other code. BSD-licensed subset of 4.4BSD (known as 4.4BSD-Lite) was used as the starting point for FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, so all three are under BSD license now (to be formally correct I should add that they also contain utilities under GPL, X11, perl dual licensing and other Open Source licenses, however usable subset is under BSD license) while BSD/OS isn't.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I have a feeling Ol' Ralphy boy doesn't even know what an operating system is. Please don't make his ISP's choice a political thing.
This is exactly why people hate BSD and other open source products. All this stupid "hey look...he's using it...it must be cool" stuff turns people off. Let its merits speak for itself and the people will come.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Neither of them is likely to know the difference between Linux and Charlie Brown's piano playing friend with a similar name.
Linux & Schroeder don't sound at all alike.
To make the above post correct, sed 's/piano\ playing/blanket-carrying/'
DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
Huh? What?
:) That company is using MS.
Based on everything I've read about Bush (he's a manager, listens to aides, delegates work, doesn't like to deal with things that are of interest to him, likes brief analyses), I truly doubt that he gave any input into the choice of software that runs his web-site. I doubt he knows or cares what's running his official campaign site.
Realistically, a staffer, or even someone from the RNC, took bids for site-design & hosting, with the lowest bid winning (or someone's brother got the job
"No the os is going to be an idilog choice... "
The OS is *not* an ideological issue in the election. The OS used by the company that hosts the web page for the candidate has *zero* significance to the public. That's like saying that the choice of engine in the tour bus McCain used has deep ideological import. Or that Bush chose his ad agency based on the software they use on their design computers.
That's just silly.
Don't look for correlation and causality where no exist.
ShoutingMan.com
Politicians do dictate everything no matter how much they do or don't know.
Bush selected Microsoft becouse in the Republican idiolog only the wealthyest corpration in America could produce the best operating system. Free is garbage and Bill Gates is the solution.
Al Gore selected Linux becouse the Democrats basic philosophy of people. Again not an informed tech choice but an idilog that matches the realitys.
Had Linus been rich and Gates poor Bush would have used Linux...
Had Windows been open sourced and Linux closed Al would have used Windows...
It's all idiolog... yes they live sleep eat breath and umm go to the bathroom.. in idilog.. they live what they speak. The become what they say. This allows them to get away with murder as even when covered in blood they embody the views others have. They need not even believe those ideas. Just live them... And with that the need not cover anything.
Bill Clinton was cought with an intern. Let's face it.. any moron can get away with an affare with a willing subordinate. That was a really sloppy coverup...
But we forgive him becouse he eat sleeps and breaths what we want him to believe. We'll never know if he believes a word of it. We do know he acts the part really well.
Thats the point....
No the os is going to be an idilog choice...
I'm supprised BSD was used... I'd be supprised of Solarus was used. Thies are better choices but don't match the idilogs as well as Linux or Windows.
By now my grandmother knows what Linux and Windows is. Not that she could make in informed tech choice. She'd say "I don't use computers" and thats her os choice... NONE...
In local political campaigns canidates will use oponents choice of operating system to sniff out political views...
You better belive it matters....
I don't actually exist.
Anyway, disinformation and propaganda is considered part of the game. Outright cheating is not.
I don't think online voting can solve the old problems of a democracy. I was merely wondering how to avoid causing new ones.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Do they really? Or did they just happen to have some smart people around who were able to grab the best tool for this specific job.
I want these political parties to be 100% in favor of freedom of people!
We already have freedom of software. There is no law against using Linux or BSD. My freedom includes the freedom to use Windows, MacOS or Solaris. Patents and copyrights might be valid political issues, but the since the time of the first vacumn tube, the right to create and distribute Free and Open Source Software was always ours.
It's absolutely stupid to judge a candidate by whether they use the software you prefer. What's next, judging them by whether they use the same aftershave as do?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Why am I not surprised?
b ush.com
0 00.com
http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=www.georgew
www.georgewbush.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0
http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=www.algore2
www.algore2000.com is running Apache/1.3.12 (Unix) PHP/4.0.1pl2 secured_by_Raven/1.5.1 on Linux
I agree that this is not the only way (or even the best way) to choose a political affiliation.
However, if you want to know which party "gets" the Open Source movement, there's really only one answer.
to protect the wealthy (only police and justice).
So if I work hard for a living, I'm not entitled to protection?
I've lived in the poor parts of town, and let me tell you that it is *nothing* like what the Liberals would have you think. If those people weren't so lazy, they wouldn't be poor! A simple solution, wouldn'y you agree?
-- Floyd
-- Floyd
That's Buchanan and Reform Party, not Nader and Green Party.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
There are many dimensions to political view. I think two of the major ones are liberal/conservative, and then libertarian/authoritarian. Most geeks would have a libertarian streak to them, but that does not really dictate whether they are liberal or conservative...for instance, I'm a libertarian liberal.
see: http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Or, did you simply not notice the ones who were working two jobs and trying to support a family, because they were never lounging around the neighborhood in the middle of the day. Because of your personal observations in one town, you can safely generalize that all poor people are lazy? No, I don't think so; just because you have an MIT email address does not mean you are omniscient.
There is no fair way to distinguish between those who have a right to vote and those who don't, if you want any claim towards being a democracy. The desire to do so is a remenant of ancient, pack animal, tribal leadership, where the guy who could beat up all the other guys was chief. The only way to improve the quality of any nation is to educate its population as well as possible, so they will more effectively govern themselves.
Sorry.
ESR says otherwise. No guns, no geek.
-- Floyd
-- Floyd
When at /., what is of interest to me is what OS/package some of these websites are running. It would be neat to some of the stats from each one (hits, data transfered, etc), interviews or background on the person(s) responsible, whether they chose a dedicated server option, multiple servers, or bought 10MB from a webhosting company, and possibly, where technology fits in with each candidate's philosophy (although that usually has no substance).
/. opinion regarding them. I read about politics elsewhere and have no plans to be swayed by one /. opinion or another.
What matters not to me are the politics espoused by these websites and each
ymmv,
You have your stories a bit wrong.
About 5 years ago, Theo left (to be nice) the NetBSD project to form OpenBSD. All of the BSDs borrow code from each other, but all also develop a lot of code themselves.
OpenBSD has more NetBSD code in it than FreeBSD, it anything, and all of that code undergoes a code -level audit before an OpenBSD release ships. This helps security and it helps stability (what better way to find bugs?)
Well, the way they suggest helping the poor is basically through charity (unless I'm mistaken). It is my opinion that instead of designing a system that enables wild extremes of wealth and then "hoping" the wealthy give some back to the poor, we should design the system so that there aren't such wild extremes in the first place. I don't care what you think, Bill Gates is not ($4 billion / ~$28,000) times a better human than the average person. Sure the system is broken now. That's not an excuse to do *nothing*.
I also challenge the view that government is the wolf itself. Sure government can be corrupted (um, for instance by billions of corporate dollars). Remember this thing called "government" is what we created to get out of the "natural state", that we all agreed in the 1800's was no good. What we need to do is fix the system, and enact barriers to corrupting influence (for one, strike down the law that makes corporations full-fledged citizens, that's just bullshit; and two, publicly finance elections - no PAC money...both positions Nader is taking). Removing the system because you think that order is inherently evil will just land you back in the "natural state". Fortunate for some of the people who espouse this, this is exactly where they want to be.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
No.
What we should do is keep voting laws just at they are, in that all adult citizens (who are not felons) have the right to vote if they choose to do so.
My point was that the choice to not vote is a valid choice, and what is more, for some people it is the wiser choice. All that "Rock the Vote" propaganda is really just encouraging people who sit and watch MTV all day to go out and vote for whoever they think is "cooler".
Not voting is a fundamental right. Don't let anybody browbeat you into thinking it is your "civic duty" to vote; if you are unsure about your choice of candidate, you can choose to accept the decision of the majority without including your own uncertain input. Don't let anybody tell you "if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain"; your First Amendment rights are not invalidated because you did not participate in an election.
And by the way, here's a little tidbit that a lot of people don't know:
You do NOT have to fill out every part of a ballot for your vote to count! If you vote this year on the Presidential election (Gore, Bush, Browne, Nader, whoever), and there is also a peon county judge election on the ballot, you can ignore that section if you have no f*ing clue who either of those people are.
Here in Minnesota, we have a common problem that we call the "Scandanavian Name Principle". Basicly, if two people are running for City Council or State Representative during a big national election, the one with a name like "Carlson" will almost always win over somebody with a non-Scandinavian last name. This is because schmuck that were practically shoved into the voting boths by Get Out The Vote efforts, and only know who the two big party Presidential candidates are (sort of), think they need to fill out the rest of the ballot for it to count, so they pick people down the rest of the ballot using really strange criteria, such as familiar-sounding last names.
So please allow me to be the only person who tells you not to bother voting if you are not up on the issues, and if you do vote, not to vote on smaller elections that you know nothing about.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Now that was my point. If there is no central server to DoS, but a large number of servers, each serving a random subset of voters, you would have a much harder time DoS-ing them AND you could not make make a more aimed effort (unless, as you suggested, you know that your opponents supporters are more likely to vote at a certain time)
Sure you could still keep *some* people away, but it would not be a predictable result.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
This is one of the worst myths in the American political landscape, that more voters is always good news.
Since I have no polling data handy, please allow me to illustrate my point using wholly made-up numbers. Even if they are completely wrong, it has little do do with my point...
Let's imagine for a moment that 60% of the US popuation is politically active and engaged. They follow the news, they pay attention to what their local government is doing, they know who their representatives are. (Perhaps too big of a number, but like I said, this is just an illustration.)
This group of is divided into a few distinct camps: 30% loyal Republicans, 30% loyal Democtrats, and 40% "swing" voters who may go either way or vote 3rd party. These swing voters therefore represent a little over 20% of the US voting-age population. In a low-turnout year, the candidate who presents the better case for election to this 20% of the population will usually win.
But in a high turn-out year, a large part of the other 40% of the US, (the Jerry Springer watching, clueless, pro wrestling fan) shows up and votes for the candidate with who appeals to them more for really stupid reasons (better looks, funnier jokes, uses a better OS on their web page, etc.) These people can actually overwhelm the input of the informed voters, and elect a total boob.
When the sufferage movement finally won votes for women, Warren Harding (who was not well-liked by the sufferage leaders) won by a landslide, in part because he took most of the female vote. When polls were taken, sufferagists were dismayed by the news that many women voted for Harding "because he's so handsome".
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I don't know is the government really that much larger an object of hate and online attacks, then, say, Microsoft? Maybe there are more people that hate the U.S. government, but I'd be willing to bet that more hackers and script kiddies alike hate MS.
But I do believe that we need some foolproof method of tamper-proofing online voting before we switch to it. My ideas:
Make all voting records public. That's right, if you want to, you should be able to download every gigabyte of votes cast, and count them to make sure the totals are correct. Each vote should be identified by a one-way hash of the voter's name and password, to keep things anonymous. That way each voter could check that his own vote was recorded correctly.
That would effectively prevent hackers from removing or changing votes or changing the vote totals without being discovered. You could improve on it (e.g. have the vote-collecting server return a digitally signed copy of the vote + date/time, so you could prove "yes I did submit this vote at this time"), but it's still got a big problem - how do you prevent a hacker from inserting new votes? I don't know any foolproof way (short of removing anonymous voting) to protect against that.
Any ideas?
Topic says it all. Sure, with floppie (cdrom for some like NT) I can secure most any OS from crackers trying to write changes.
Add in your turn off other services I can help prevent them from getting in.
What if there is a hole in the web server? It has happened before ya know. Or maybe a ping of death type attack. Whatever. Once the OS is shutdown or cracked (think shutdown -h now) someone needs to (perhaps physically) reboot the machine. Since machines tend to take a few minutes to reboot (mine takes over a minute in the bios, though half of that is finding my scsi harddrives). It is fairly simple once a hole is found to shutdown the machine, to write a script to do so.
Remember this is a poltical website. You have to consider that the person doing the cracking might not just be a script kiddie, he might be an otherwise intellegant adult with poltical motivations. Someone trying to shutdown a website for political reasons isn't as interested in gaining root as he is with keeping others off the net. Few people can afford to do a DoS attack against a machine where the slowest link is a T3. (Which a good hosting company will probably have just to deal with the bandwidth normally seen)
My personal opinion is that welfare _is_ a huge waste of money if government doesn't provide decent education for the same category of people -- people that are poor and ignorant will remain poor if they will remain ignorant. It isn't hard to build a good government-sponsored (because certainly no one else will sponsor such a thing) educational system that can provide well-designed curriculum, and is open to all people that are capable of learning. I am doing just fine after studying in Russia where such a thing was implemented, and so can most of other people, poor or not. It only requires some smart teachers that write courses and teach students, and some smart politicians that write laws and allocate money for it... Oh, I forgot, we are in US -- now I see the problem.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
You are wrong!!! OpenBSD code never came from NetBSD, OpenBSD was forked from NetBSD, and as a matter of fact, FreeBSD has borrowed more codes from OpenBSD than OpenBSD has done from FreeBSD. Partially because OpenBSD finds the bug firsts and FreeBSD copies, OpenBSD implments advanced crypto funtionality which other BSD's borrow. The place where OpenBSD is trying to borrow from FreeBSD now is SMP support.
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
Guns are the tool of the righteous man, allowing one to defend oneself against the depredations of a society increasingly consumed by such capitalist ills as poverty, atheism and drugs. Thanks to the liberal pro-"freedom" mindset that pervades our government, corporations led by greedmongers and Satanists lead the way to the corruption of the weaker elements of society, leaving a wake of gang violence, crack addicts and hardneded criminals, all of whome require dealing with in the harshest way by concerned Christians.
That's what your problem is in the UK - you don't have the courage to do your part for your country and for God. Removing the dead wood of society is your duty as both a Christian and as a man.
There are two ways to tamper with an election (exept for the usual unholy game called election campaign)
a) You either try to cheat outright, replacing notes with "Guy X" printed on them with notes with "Guy Y" (or flood the booth with "Guy Y" votes, or rig the lists or counting) or
b) You disturb the election itself. Making it difficult for your opponents suspected supporters to vote.
Real life meatspace voting is not so easy to disturb. Sure, you can cause a lot of trouble, but to seriously affect the outcome of an election, you must have lots of people with you messing vith voting booths all over the country. That means to pull it off you must be big enough to be an important political factor anyway.
Online voting may be more sensitive to tampering than traditional voting since a single cracker, with or without a political agenda, might try to alter the results (method a) or simply DoS the voting server (method b).
Now the best way to counter this threat would be to large number of voting servers, each taking votes from a random subset of the population. This way one successful cracker attempt will be a nuisance, like a single bomb threat on election day, but will hardly have any affect on the overall results.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Maybe politicians just feel comfortable with the innocent looking devil logo?
PigPog.
Or are they talking about something else entirely?
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
Okay, that's fine. I personally use Debian GNU/Linux because I believe in Free Software. Just because you're pragmatic doesn't mean everyone else should be.
Imagine Ralph Nader pondering night after night over what OS should he choose for his campaign website server?
Not Nader personally, but I could imagine a campaign staffer or volunteer chose Free Software because it agrees with the Reform Party's ideas (note: I'm not American, and the only American party I know anything about is the Libertarian Party. If the Reform Party are really a bunch of authoritarian dictators, then they're being hypocritical).
That a politician is using a certain operating system for his campaign?
What's wrong with that? Not all politicians are corrupt; besides, as you say, this choice may have been entirely based on the technical quality of BSD. Hosting a political website that has to serve lots of traffic while under constant attack is a fairly strenous test. Just like hosting the website of any large company, I think this is an event the BSD community can be proud of.
How amazingly we see some "polemic people" using "polemic software"
- www.scientology.org is running
WebSitePro/2.5.4 on NT4 or Windows 98
- www.hitlerisgod.com is running Netscape-Enterprise/4.1 on Windows 2000
And also some weird surprises--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
One thing to learn very quickly in polytics is every politician is a micro dictator.
They dictate everything from server policy to office methidology.
Anything a canidate can do himself he will do himself.
No some hippy did NOT pick server policy. If there is some hippy running the servers he was hand picked by the canidate himself. Not the best person for the job but a volintear the canidate himself feels good about. In short only way you'll get a hippy tech is from a hippy canidate...
Micro dictators meaning they fight the urge and they know better but they WANT to Micromanage. They can't. But anything they can dabble with they will.
The first thing that happend when the servers went up was the canidate himself picked the os. Windows for the Republicans becouse the worlds richest corpration makes the best operating systems. It runs on from there.
Server policy is very much idilogicly defined and the idilog making those choices is the canidate himself. Not the SysAdm.. who is most likely a volintear with a similer world view...
Canidates do this becouse let's face it.. voters do what Slashdot is doing. Every step every look every blink must present the canidates agenda. They can not allow some kid to pick the system if say Linux dosn't say of the canidate all the canidate wants.
One area where libertarians and the green party agree is on poverty. They don't agree on solutions but they agree a dramaticly diffrent policy on poverty is nessisary. In that they disagree with the Republicans and Democrats ideas on addressing poverty.
A classic addatude BTW is "AntiPoor" means "Disagrees with my solution".
The Republicans DO have a solution for poverty. You may find it distastful and wrong and just plain stupid but it's clearly not "throw them to the wolfs". Thow some conservitive Republicans I've talked to do feel poverty is not an issue to address.. they have the "if they weren't lazy they wouldn't be poor" addatude it dosn't accually boil down so simply however it's compatable with the sentiment. Probably better said "If they work really hard they won't be poor for long" a bit more of an enlightend view suggesting that poverty itself is a sign of hard times and hard times are overcome with hard work.
It's a good idea. But it takes more than that. I do believe hard work is part of the over all solution but it's going to take some leadership to convence the poor to work hard and give them a target to work for. Not workfair or any such simple minded goals. But now I'm politicing and my ideals arn't running so I'll shut up on that for now.
The Democrats want to use governemt policys. This is ok. Help programs etc. The addatude here is "Only by government can anything be done" a absolutly wrong addatude.
This policy can work becouse the governemnt can get things done. But by far this is not the only posable solution.
Libertarians (at least the ones I talked to) want to solve the homeless problem with non-proffits. Many Democrats and Republicans also view this as a good solution.
Also preposed for local enforcment was zoning areas where homeless can set up tents or home made structures. Such policys are not populare and may be very short sited. This policy gets most of it's support from the green and libertarian partys. It gets NO support from the Democrats or Republicans.
Back to my politicing. My personal favorate policy is to take money going to the welfair burrocracy and send it out to non-proffits in the form of governemnt grants. This is becouse non-proffits have a better success rate for getting poor into work. They have more comprehensive programs. They do trainning etc. They find the needs of the poor and addapt accordingly.
One non-proffit I know asked why people had a hard time getting work. The answer.. they couldn't present themselvs properly. They came to the interviews dressed improperly they didn't have a mailing address that sort of problem.
I don't actually exist.
I sense another case of "operating system bigotry" here. Using Linux/BSD doesn't make a candidate good or bad; perhaps they only picked an "alternative" OS to attract techy geeks. And I doubt the candidates themselves have much of a clue about operating systems... such choices are made by staffers.
It may surpise the zealots of Slahsdot, but there are legitimate and sound reasons for running a Microsoft product. If Slashdot truly advocates freedom, then it shouldn't look down on someone who makes a choice that differs from the "party line."
Freedom only works if everyone is free...
All about me
I don't visit K5 much but it's intresting you've read so much on Slashdot about poverty considering Slashdot amd K5 are tech forums and poverty never comes up byond some fears that the poor don't have access to technology.
Of course, apart from the story "Poverty in America" which was on kuro5hin about a week before it went down. There was plenty of the kind of thing I'm talking about under that story.
First, "Nader and the rest of his Libertarians" sounds very funny considering that he is not Libertarian but Green. Second, why do you think that slashdot users are against poor people? Because some weirdo said few days ago that geeks are libertarians?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Libertarians are NOT anti-poor. Libertarians don't want to throw people to the wolves. Libertarians believe the government IS the wolf!
Libertarians want to help the poor at the local level. They don't want the federal government taking all your money to Washington with the hope that they will give it back to your community.
If you believe the federal welfare state actually helps the poor, vote for some other party.
I'm sure if online voting were implemented in larger elections we would see a many more attacks, and from many more people. I'm sure there are plenty of other organizations that would to effect American (or any other nation for that matter) elections. I wonder if this won't be the biggest obstacle to online voting.
If we were to implement online voting in the US for a national election, I wonder if it would even be technically possible due to the sheer number of attacks sure to come.
On the other hand... I mean, is that really a good argument for you? That a politician is using a certain operating system for his campaign?
Like, you trust them?
Best regards,
January