Slashdot Mirror
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.
I'm curious, has someone audited the code for these devices? How do I know that some employee ,who's a hard democrat, republican, or independent, hasn't added his or her little hacks. Like every fifth vote that doesn't agree with his or her view gets changed.
I guess with something as valuable as my vote, I want the source to be public.
You guys could have posted a reminder to vote today. The election results are all fine and dandy, but a well-written summary of "Remember to vote," voting locations, etc. posted this morning would have been appreciated.
I'd appreciate it if you could keep this in mind for next year. The more informed voters we have out there, the better. Slashdot could really help get the word out (especially on the issues that matter most to geeks!)
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
It would've passed, but a lot of the supporters forgot to vote.
. . . Dewey really didn't defeat Truman.
Exit polls are oftened cited as a problem in our elections. How many times have you seen an exit poll while the election was still going on? All the time and often it simply discourages voters from casting their votes... Why bother is Candidate X is leading in the exit polls. I actually am interested to see if the mid term turn out is greater than normal as a result. Mid term elections are always crappy.
Thalasar
I think that the "if-voting-could-change-anything-it-would-be-illeg al dept." shows how irresponsible and juvenile /. really is. If everyone thought like you, anyone who felt like it could decide what happens to us. Your voice individually doesn't matter, but don't you realize that it matters when its a part of a group, no matter how large or small that group is. For shame.
__________________________________________
Take comfort in your ignorance.
Grandmaster Plague
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.
The most interesting thing I've heard on the news today is that one of the international organizations that monitors elections in the Third World is monitoring the election in Florida this time.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
As for voting glitches, I only have this to say. If you have a complaint about an election process, better to voice it before the election, not during or after when your party's candidate is losing or has lost. The reports that lawyers are on standby for each major party infuriates me. Either the process is goofed to begin with or it isn't. Maybe I'm just an idealist, but I believe any discrepencies with the voting processes are going to affect all candidates, not just losing ones.
That's the one thing I simply don't understand about modern voting rhetoric. How could we possibly place more trust in voting systems simply because they are electronic? All this would require is a single person with a single clue somewhere along the data chain to manipulate the results.
It seems that fraud would become even simpler with computerized voting to me. It's like everyone is jumping on a train without thinking about its destination, or, more to the point, the path it will take to its destination.
Where do the results go? Do they go to separate databases, preferably several separate databases, as soon as a vote is cast? This would seemingly allow for "diffing," for lack of a better term, between multiple sources of final vote counts.
I'm in no shape at the moment to define how the electronic/computerized voting results should be quanitified, but PLEASE, at least let us consider these things, rather than saying to ourselves "Well, it's computerized now, so at least there will be no more fraud."
If we're going to redesign how the votes in this nation are counted, and I believe that we are all in agreement that this system of voting desperately needs to be revamped in this modern age (please feel free to tell me I'm wrong), that we can sit down and discuss how it should be done, rather than allowing our morbidly ignorant "representative government" to tell us how it should, and will be done for us.
Oh, wait, this is the US. I forgot, we have no say. Ah, well, cross your fingers and hope for the best.
1) Ballotscape creates the most innovative and foolproof voting software.
2) Ballotscape's software becomes installed on voting machines nationwide.
3) Microsoft releases "innovative" MS-Vote for free.
4) Microsoft embeds MS-Vote into Windows.
5) Microsoft gives away Dell voting machines to the States as a condition for overcharging for licenses.
6) Gates/Dell presidential ticket mysteriously captures 90% of the popular vote (Jobs/Feiss ticket only receives 5%).
Now, if VNS were as good at predicting the outcome of software development projects, as they are at predicting election results... Hmmm, maybe the problem is, they are.
Speaking of elections--Today was the election, but slashdot didn't even run a story asking geeks to vote. You'd think that a site that cares so much about "Your Rights Online" would at least point out a couple of candidates who have either very bad records on such things or very good records. You know, if all we do is whine about the DMCA, congress-critters will continue to screw us over. Voting, and getting other people to vote will make them sit up and take notice. Well, maybe 2004.
Even if it passes, it won't fly because a state can't legalize something that is federally outlawed.
Personally, I think the whole thing is silly anyways, there's more important things to worry about than one's ability to get high. Besides, people will do it regardless of the law anyway.
sometimes I really think that the South was right about State's rights.
We don't get the chance to vote on Federal law(only a few people to vote for us that only a majority of us chose), and when we DO get the chance to vote (State laws) they don't count worth a shit.
Something to think about.
Your belief that people will do it anyway is right on the money. So why punish them? It is an actual victimless crime.
Sounds like what Montana did with their speed limits during the 55 era. If you never drove through back in the day, it worked like this. If you get pulled over, coverage is pretty limited here, they only time I still see a highway patrol is near a city, or highway patrol HQ, you paid the cop a $5 ticket that didn't get written up to your insurance. Most people in the state, drove with a stack of of 5s in the glove compartment. Technically the speed limit was 55 so they got their highway money, but enforcement was very limited.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
But that's precisely the point -- people ARE smoking dope, and buying it and selling it and being put into jail for absurdly long times on account of it. I don't have statistics handy but surely you know the score -- our prisons are bursting at the seams, and the racial socioeconomic divide is still prevalent, thanks mostly to the drug war. It doesn't matter if you think people should smoke pot or not, or if you think that most pro-legalization advocates only want to get high themselves. What matters is that the drug war is a terribly expensive, destructive mistake and it needs to stop, now. Think about it.
My deviantArt site
The 93,000 people that were not allowed to vote during the 2000 election in Florida were still on the list this time around. The company who created that list of supposed felons and dead people for Katherine Harris says that if Harris had not crossed off most of their checking processes off of the contract and they were allowed to process that list that the end result would be a list of approximately 3000 names. Ninety-one thousand people (mostly African American Democrats, curiously enough) would be allowed to vote today (and two years ago) if they were allowed to do their job.
The State of Florida, when confronted with this information, admitted that the list was flawed and that they would get it fixed...some time in 2003. After the current election.
For more information check out Greg Palast's book "The Best Democracy Money Could Buy". It's a heck of a read. There was also an article over at Salon late last week but it is in their premium contect section.
a state can't legalize something that is federally outlawed.
The federal government can't outlaw commerce within a state, can it? According to the U.S. Constitution, article 1, "The Congress shall have power ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes ... To declare war ... To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers" (my emphasis). The 10th Amendment gives the states the right to regulate anything not in Congress's exclusive domain. (The 14th Amendment limits that slightly by applying most of the Bill of Rights to the states.)
If banning beverages containing ethanol required an amendment to the Constitution, then how can Congress get away with banning pot? That should be the State of Nevada's right to put on the ballot.
Case law citations welcome.
Will I retire or break 10K?
nearly all laws congress makes that seem to have no authority to to do so, are based on this precedent. The intra-state activity could effect inter-state commerce. But this has been streteched to the breaking point. For example, why is it a federal crime to use a hand gun near a school, or to commit a "hate" crime. there is nothing in the constitution that seems to permit this.
scooby snacks all around!
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
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?
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
I've got two words that should fully capture how encouraged I would be by that prospect:
John Ashcroft
The Republicans had the Senate for a few months and it brought us the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, some of the most frightening abrogrations of basic constitutional protections, gutted antitrust enforcement, and who knows how many other goodies.
Fritz Hollings will be perfectly capable of doing damage whether the Democrats stay on top or not. As I recall, Republican Congresses didn't stop the DMCA or the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension act from sailing through.
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?
Twenties Retirement
Most countries in Europe (and, I assume, the World), have been successfully experimenting with a revolutionary voting method:
1. Voters are given a piece of "paper". On this "paper" are the names of the candidates or parties, followed the respective picture or symbol, followed by an empty square.
2. Using a device known as "pen", the voters proceed to make a "cross" (a highly optimised mark, consisting of two straight lines) inside the "square" that corresponds to the person or party they wish to vote for.
3. The voters then fold this paper two or three times and insert it in a large "box" (a device for storing pieces of paper).
4. Once voting is over, advanced counting machines known as "people" (usually groups of volunteers, with one or two official representatives) take the pieces of paper out of the box and look at the marks made with the pens. They write down how many "votes" there were for each candidate. This process typically takes less than six hours, including one recount.
5. (This part will sound obvious to most people familiar with democracy, but americans may find it surprising) The candidate with the most votes wins.
It's a relatively inexpensive and ecological process, since the paper can be recycled. But, most of all, it works.
RMN
~~~
> a touch screen interface [...] the X magically appears [...]
> a card with a magnetic strip is activated [...] you go and
> stick that in the machine [...]
This was probably invented by Wallace & Gromit, right? It sort of reminds me of the NASA program to create a pen that could write in space. NASA (and american taxpayers) "invested" close to one million dollars on that. The russians used pencils.
> it eliminates multiple votes for the same office,
Huh?
> it allows you to *change* your vote if you've pressed the wrong box,
If you make a mistake, ask for a new piece of "paper". They're free.
> and it allows you to *verify* that you have voted for the right canidate!
I assume you mean "right" in a practical sense, not in a philosophical sense. In which case, using the "paper" method, you can use your "eyes" to look at the "paper", and you'll know if you've voted for the right candidate.
Also, computers are known to sometimes misplace some bytes. It's extremely rare for a cross made with a pen to jump from one part of the paper to another.
Sometimes low tech is good tech.
RMN
~~~
There's an easy solution, and I don't know why nobody's thought of it.
Make the voting machines print out a summary page.
Confirm your votes on the screen. The machine prints out a list of your votes, with a stamp on it to confirm which machine it came from and when it was made. You visually inspect the list and compare it to your choices on the screen, and then confirm a second time. Then you're done.
If something doesn't work right, then one of those 10,000+ lawyers that were at the polls yesterday could raise a Big Stink(TM) about it.
Sure, it could be hijacked. I mean, if it's got rogue code which is designed to only register votes for John Q. Incumbent, then maybe it'll print your results accurately, but actually log a vote for the other guy. SO...you do a secondary confirmation count by machine processing the paper votes, just like your fill-in-the-bubble ballots. Check the paper results against the electronic results. There you go. And in the event of extreme paranoia/lawsuits, you've got the *voter confirmed* paper printouts which can be visually inspected for a recount.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
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.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.