Indecision 2002

The most common story submission about the U.S. elections held today seems to be that the consortium which typically conducts and reports exit polls has encountered technical difficulties. If only they'd had an open beta program... There have also been a number of stories highlighting problems with new electronic voting machines, a topic Slashdot has hit several times in the past. CNN, the NY Times, and essentially every other U.S. news outfit are following the election results as best they can.

Comments

Electronic Voting analysis by a CompSci prof

[sakusha]

There is a series of very interesting papers on voting theory, both on paper and electronically, written by a computer science professor and election commissioner. I recommend them highly:

http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/

In particular, I recommend the essay on Paper Ballots, that's the theoretical basis for the current electronic systems.

Re:MARIJUANA IN NEVADA!!!

[dirvish]

It certainly helps if it isn't locally enforced. If local officials don't press charges or a local judge throws cases out the feds may never catch wind of it or bother to deal with it.

Obviously is isn't just about "one's ability to get high." It is about our civil rights and about people being able to get proper medical treatment. What the hell is the point of making a plant illegal?

What actually happened

[wmspringer]

hmm, I just read the actual article. It says:

Democrats asked for the initial order because some precincts in Pulaski County ran out of ballots.

In other words, people are showing up on time and not being able to vote because the equipment isn't working/available. The Democrats are trying to fix the problem, and the Republicans are trying (successfully, it seems) to stop them.

Florida, anyone?

Re:Electronic voting ... where's the code?

[jafuser]

Does anyone have any information on how (and to what extent) voting machines are audited?

Basically, they're not. Not only that, but they're typically being designed in other countries; and they're protected by the DMCA from anyone to even attempt to audit them by opening the voting machines up and taking a look around inside (including the government itself!).

Rebecca Mercuri did her CS PhD thesis on this very topic. Here is her summary. She's often quoted on this topic.

Wicard's wheat

[goombah99]

In the case of Wicard's wheat, the supreme court ruled that if a man was growing his own wheat then obvioulsy he would not be buying any wheat, and his failure to consume affected interstate commerce. Therefore the Feds have the authority to regulate what and how much he can grow. And from there it was all downhill.

Congress's ability to make laws the regulate personal behaviour and practices entirely within a state ALL stem from the constitution's allowance for the feds to regulate inter-state commerce. And this was originally put in the constitution as a sweetener to join the union (i.e joint a free trade zone! much like reason everyone joined the EU or why nafta happened. scary).

Excerpted from www.fff.org: Enter Roscoe Filburn, an Ohio dairy and poultry farmer, who raised a small quantity of winter wheat -- some to sell, some to feed his livestock, and some to consume. In 1940, under authority of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the central government told Mr. Filburn that for the next year he would be limited to planting 11 acres of wheat and harvesting 20 bushels per acre. He harvested 12 acres over his allotment for consumption on his own property. When the government fined him, Mr. Filburn refused to pay. Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it -- and that affected interstate commerce. It also argued that if the price of wheat rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might be tempted to sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market, thwarting the government's objective. The Supreme Court bought it. The Court's opinion must be quoted to be believed: [The wheat] supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. As Epstein commented, "Could anyone say with a straight face that the consumption of home-grown wheat is 'commerce among the several states?'" For good measure, the Court justified the obvious sacrifice of Mr. Filburn's freedom and interests to the unnamed farmers being protected: It is of the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand on the self-interest of the regulated and that advantages from the regulation commonly fall to others. After Wickard , everything is mere detail. The entire edifice of civil rights legislation stands on the commerce power. Under this maximum commerce power, the government has been free to regulate nearly everything, including a restaurant owner's bigotry. The Court has held that if Congress sees a connection to interstate commerce, it is not its role to second guess.