Slashdot Mirror


India Starts All-Electronic National Elections

fantomas writes "Forget the problems of e-voting in a state in some middling sized western country as recently reported by Slashdot. The world's largest democracy is about to go to the polling stations and vote for a new government using all-electronic voting systems. Will it work? Will the USA follow if all goes to plan? Can any readers from India comment on how it seems to be going?"

395 comments

  1. Python.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    How would they know if they have screwed up votes? The ballots read like the Python Spam Skit:

    Place your vote:

    Egg and Singh

    Egg Bacon and Singh

    Egg Bacon Sausage and Singh

    Singh Bacon Sausage and Singh

    Singh Egg Singh Singh Bacon and Singh

    Singh Sausage Singh Singh Bacon Singh Tomato and Singh

    Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and Singh

    Just a joke, lads. In India "Singh" is like "Smith" in the West.

    1. Re:Python.. by Andreas(R) · · Score: 1

      Actually, since most Indians are iliterate, they vote by selecting the icon of your party from a list.
      Much like your average Slashdot poll.

    2. Re:Python.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you call an Indian in a nightclub?
      Dan Singh

      Insert other "... Singh" jokes here.:)

    3. Re:Python.. by TiggsPanther · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, the one at the bottom would be a guy with a hat and a lasso on his knees then?

      --
      Tiggs
      "120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
    4. Re:Python.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, since most Indians are iliterate

      Maybe the US should adopt Voting by Icon.

    5. Re:Python.. by eclectus · · Score: 1

      nah, you'll be abe to tell because Kevin Mitnick will be elected Prime Minister of India.

      --
      This signature is a waste of 42 characters
    6. Re:Python.. by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      nah, you'll be abe to tell because Kevin Mitnick will be elected Prime Minister of India.

      And if the elections go off without a hitch then all the Slashdot whiners will apologize to Diebold and other electronic voting machine makers right? Electronic voting is coming whether you like it or not. It's no worse than Florida's "I can sort of see a pinhole of light through this ballot so I think the guy intended to vote for Gore" recount debacle.

    7. Re:Python.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      come on now, that's not true. illiteracy rates estimated by UNESCO in 2000 are:
      • 31.6% male aged 15+
      • 54.6% female aged 15+
      and much better in the large 15-24 age cohort:
      • 20.3% male aged 15-24
      • 35.2% female aged 15-24

      and literacy rates determined by the department of education are 62% in the 1997 data set.

      n.b. both literacy and illiteracy rates vary widely between states.

    8. Re:Python.. by mwood · · Score: 3, Funny

      We already did. If you truly don't know or care who is best suited to run things, you can just pull the lever with the cute donkey or elephant on it (whichever one your daddy taught you to pull) and be happy.

      Anyway the majority of us in the U.S. are semiliterate. Otherwise how would we know which bottle says, "Coke," and which, "Pepsi?" Now, *that* would be a calamity, wouldn't it?

      Some of us can even spell correctly without help.

    9. Re:Python.. by E_elven · · Score: 1

      Even if the elections "go without a hitch", it doesn't mean the ware worked. It just means the officials didn't notice anything off.

      --
      Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
    10. Re:Python.. by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Um, the recount wasn't a debacle; it was working just fine before the Supreme Court shut it down. Bush had a recount going on in New Mexico at the same time that he had no problems with. No army of political drones staging fake protests to shut down recount stations.

      And there is absolutely no way of determining if cheating is going on in an electronic system. That's the entire point. There are no recounts. There is nothing except the black boxes, which are of course perfect and unhackable.

    11. Re:Python.. by zoney_ie · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Some of us can even spell correctly without help.

      Well, the original perpetrators of the English language might disagree that anyone in the US can spell correctly. :o)

      Fortunately, here in Ireland, we get to abuse the English language as much as we like, and if criticised, just point out that it's not our natural language :o)

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    12. Re:Python.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      COKE RED! PEPSI BLUE!

    13. Re:Python.. by Cassius105 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeh but you guys make guiness which makes it okay :)

    14. Re:Python.. by Twinkle2 · · Score: 0

      Nice posting, and not far from the truth. Only that for some strange reason most indian politicians seem to have Gandhi as lastname.

    15. Re:Python.. by Paul+d'Aoust · · Score: 1

      whoa whoa whoa whoa... little bit of a sweeping generalisation there... The southern province Kerala has one of the highest literacy rates in the world, even though many live under the poverty line. I think it's something like 90 per cent, comparable to that of developed countries. The whole country's average is much lower at 55 per cent, but there are many, many sharp people in India.

      ...who will probably be stealing your job real soon.

      --
      Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
    16. Re:Python.. by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 1
      Yes, but according to Indian govt. definition of being literate, is being able to sign your name.

      How difficult is that ?

      Now if you count people who have completed highschool, it will be quite less, especially amongs the 40+ age group.

      But the literacy rate ( highschool education not the name signing thing) is quite high in the current generations, and even high is the rate of people going on to complete their graduation.

      But sadly these are the very people who are uninterested in elections. So it's a catch 22 problem, the illeterates vote in majority for leaders who are intersted in keeping them illeterates (so as to preserve their vote bank), and the one's who are literate , are so depressed by the policital fiasco, they don't bother about it.

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    17. Re:Python.. by manavendra · · Score: 1

      Just a joke, lads. In India "Singh" is like "Smith" in the West.

      Not true at all. Unlike in the west, or maybe rather more clearly than in the west, the surnames in India provide a fairl idea of the religious beliefs or sect a person belongs to. This may seem bizarre to the western mind of course, but rather than delve into the history behind it, let me just tell you that "Singh" is a very small part of the surnames you'd come across. Ask anyone in UK - they'd have heard of more "Patel"s.

      Like I heard on BBC, muslims form a "vast" majority - 120 million of them live in India. Its a big country and with a billion citizens, you ma easily be mislead if you come across only one particular group/clan of people

      --
      http://efil.blogspot.com/
    18. Re:Python.. by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 1

      Ireland eh?
      The montly IFSO is tonight if you're in/near Dublin.

    19. Re:Python.. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Guinness definitely tends to have a negative impact on the spoken word after a half-dozen pints or so.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    20. Re:Python.. by operagost · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'd say arbitrarily determining a voter's "intent" by how the punch was "sorta pushed in a little", or "they punched two holes, which one did they mean", or "they voted Buchanan, but since this is a very Democratic district I'm sure they meant Gore" is a DEBACLE.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    21. Re:Python.. by alphakappa · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just a joke, lads. In India "Singh" is like "Smith" in the West.

      In north India, that is. In the south "Singh" is a martian.

      --
      "When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
    22. Re:Python.. by Atryn · · Score: 1
      And if the elections go off without a hitch then all the Slashdot whiners will apologize to Diebold and other electronic voting machine makers right?
      How would you know? If a manipulation of the elections goes off without a hitch will you apologize? Oh wait, if it went off without a hitch in an electronic system, there's no record. Nevermind.
      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    23. Re:Python.. by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 0

      India, like most developing countries, is highly corrupt. It is nothing more than a kleptocracy. This pretty much means that families are what matter. If your parent, or their relative, or whatever, was popular, you are sure to be considered. If you are a nobody, tough luck.

      People just blindly trust a person due to their family history... it could also be due to culture. In most Asian cultures, family is more important than the individual. You'll get a free pass if your family is renowed; whereas in European cultures, family isn't so important.

      As a side note, the name Gandhi is very popular. So that is also one reason many people have that name. The politicians named Gandhi are not related to Mahatma Gandhi...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    24. Re:Python.. by fdesibert · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, Europeans, especially the French and the Brits consider family noteworthiness one of the discerning factors of an individual. Outmoded? Potentially, but is still a de facto modus operandi Freddie

    25. Re:Python.. by MacDork · · Score: 1

      What would be nice is a lever for all incumbents, and all challengers. Well, mainly just all challengers. That way, if you're just generally pissed about the state of your government, you can easily register that thought :-) Not that it really matters anyway. One dollar, one vote is the American way.

    26. Re:Python.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In north India, that is. In the south "Singh" is a martian. Martian in west, east and north-east India (all regions distict in cultural) too!

    27. Re:Python.. by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Muslims are still the minority in India. Yes, there are Muslims in India than in Pakistan, but that's because India is so large. Muslims are about 12% of the Indian population.

    28. Re:Python.. by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      Oh wait, if it went off without a hitch in an electronic system, there's no record. Nevermind.

      Of course there's a record. How do you think they count the votes? If there's one record then they can have the machine create two at seperate locations. Hell, create a dozen records in different databases. If they don't match up then discard the vote as flawed.

    29. Re:Python.. by dotslasher_sri · · Score: 1

      Yes Very true, Singhs are the majority in only one state (punjab), and because many people from that state people tend to think that singh is like smith, and patels are the majority in another state(Gujrat).

    30. Re:Python.. by d0n+quix0te · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you for the Judean Peoples front not the Peoples front of Judea.

      Fuck off! We are the peoples front of Judea.

  2. and the next prime minister is by paiute · · Score: 1, Funny

    Sanjay Goatse

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:and the next prime minister is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he's a shoe-in for the next prime minister. (and a foot in, and a traffic cone in, and...)

    2. Re:and the next prime minister is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And we all know he stole the election from Gore.

      Actually, Gore lost the election fair and square -- 5 to 4.

      I wonder what happens when the story comes out on which justices had bet on which candidate in the office pool ( Harry Blackmun spilled the beans in his recently released interviews). Sounds like 9 justices that should have recused themselves.

      At least in India, they haven't established the same pattern we have in these cases. Historically in the US, nearly every candidate to steal a presidential election has been assasinated in office.

  3. Bizarre Election Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After electronic voting was in-acted in India, the Singing and Dancing party sweeped the polls.

    1. Re:Bizarre Election Results by catherder_finleyd · · Score: 0

      Is it true they will move the capital to Mumbai, which they rename to "Bollywood"?

    2. Re:Bizarre Election Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, The capital will be still in New Delhi. They are not renaming Mumbai to Bollywood. Bollywood is the name of the local film industry

    3. Re:Bizarre Election Results by BobRooney · · Score: 1

      In another referandum on the ballot, it has been determined that all Indian Motion Pictures will now require a minimum of 3* scenes worth of traditional indian dancing escpecially when it makes no sense in the context of the rest of the movie.

      *This is an increase from the 2 currently required by law.

    4. Re:Bizarre Election Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After electronic voting was in-acted in India, the Singing and Dancing party sweeped the polls.

      Wouldn't that be the Singh-ing and Dancing party?

      Pun - the worst form of humor known to man ... unless I invented it.

    5. Re:Bizarre Election Results by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1
      THREE? Are you kidding? Everyone knows that every Indian phillum [*] should have at least six songs of 4 minutes each!

      (* - Ahem, In-glish)

  4. elephants by millahtime · · Score: 3, Funny

    "helicopters, bullock carts and elephants were all used to ferry the machines to the remotest corners of India."

    An elephant carrying a voting machine. Even in my wildest dreams I never would have thought of that.

    1. Re:elephants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try getting one across a 5 day trek into the wilderness of the lower himalays.

      One of the greatest things of some of these areas ( and I speak for large sprawls of East Asia / Subcontinent - not only India ) is the untouched by man + tech, land.

      Speaking of elephants, on a trip to Thailand, I saw an Elephant with a 'tail light( literally) ' being walked down the national highway.

    2. Re:elephants by manavendra · · Score: 2, Informative

      An elephant carrying a voting machine. Even in my wildest dreams I never would have thought of that. Again, it may be hard for a westerner (for Indians, the term implies not only Americans, but Europeans as well) to believe this, but there are parts of the country that are either very inaccessible, or poorly developed or both. Natural elements play a vital role as well - there are certain parts of the country that are prone to landslides, floods and cloudbursts in the same season and most systems breakdown (at least whatever we have there).

      Ultimately, we end up resorting to rather un-natural or the "old" means of conveyance, be it riding elephants.

      It may seem amusing or shocking, but using elephants isn't very different than bullock carts (which were and still are used in certain parts of the country).

      Or maybe the very mention of elephants reminds you of a zoo and/or brings about images of a oriental land of snake charmers?

      --
      http://efil.blogspot.com/
    3. Re:elephants by Atryn · · Score: 1
      Again, it may be hard for a westerner (for Indians, the term implies not only Americans, but Europeans as well) to believe this, but there are parts of the country that are either very inaccessible, or poorly developed or both.
      I can believe it... What do they do about security? And I assume those machines must be pretty ruggedized... you wouldn't want to collect all of those votes and then have a bad storm kill the machine.
      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    4. Re:elephants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What do they do about security?
      1. As mentioned in the article, elephants were used to send these machines to the remote areas, and these are not connected to any central server.

      2. The counting will be done at the local electoral office where usually representatives from all parties are present to ensure there is no mischief (or inaccuracy), so the machines will be stored in the local municipal/electoral offices, thereby reducing the risk of destruction due to bad weather

      3. Finally, it is incredibly hard to get hold of firearms in India - the gun laws are extremely strict, which acts as a two-edged prong - while it is relatively easy to safeguard anything (couple of armed guards usually suffice); when attacked there is not much to defend with.

    5. Re:elephants by manavendra · · Score: 1

      What do they do about security?

      1. As mentioned in the article, elephants were used to send these machines to the remote areas, and these are not connected to any central server.

      2. The counting will be done at the local electoral office where usually representatives from all parties are present to ensure there is no mischief (or inaccuracy), so the machines will be stored in the local municipal/electoral offices, thereby reducing the risk of destruction due to bad weather.

      3. Finally, it is incredibly hard to get hold of firearms in India - the gun laws are extremely strict, which acts as a two-edged prong - while it is relatively easy to safeguard anything (couple of armed guards usually suffice); when attacked there is not much to defend with.

      (sorry about repost - somehow slashdot assumed i wasn't logged in)

      --
      http://efil.blogspot.com/
    6. Re:elephants by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1
      Or maybe the very mention of elephants reminds you of a zoo and/or brings about images of a oriental land of snake charmers?

      Nope, I think of the Republican Party (whose symbol is an elephant). See this google search for details.

  5. If it works... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...lets hope they don't out source their election to a certain American company.

    1. Re:If it works... by supersam · · Score: 1

      ... then a certain American company had better start looking elsewhere for business!

  6. Risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just hope nothing goes wrong and they need to call tech support because it's probably been outsourced to India and they'll have a hard time understanding the thick accents. Oh wait...

    1. Re:Risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no, that won't happen - all the tech support staff will be off work queuing up to vote.

    2. Re:Risky by stochastix · · Score: 1

      The machines being used in the Indian election are actually manufactured in India by government owned companies - Bharat Electronics Limited and Electronics Corporation of India Limited.

      And from what I know about India I can confidently say that do not have tech support (-:

    3. Re:Risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well well....you are right baby.....you will have to get used to the thick indian accents.....bcoz thats the future

    4. Re:Risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buddy...its time your election counting was outsourced , if nothing else the ballot machines would certainly be outsourced from India.

  7. Perhaps by puargsss · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    They should outsource their votes to the US... It'd balance things out, methinks.

  8. you know... by Beatbyte · · Score: 2

    we could just outsource our voting :-T

    1. Re:you know... by Niddix · · Score: 1

      Since many politicians want to allow non-citizens with green cards to vote they are essentially doing just that.

    2. Re:you know... by Usquebaugh · · Score: 1

      No tax without representation?

    3. Re:you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and now Bush wants to make it the law that illegal aliens can get drivers licenses.

      How the heck are we gonna ever get SETI to work if we just let them drive around? Is the plan to retune SETI to the CB band? Or maybe cell phones.

    4. Re:you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by the way - you cannot vote with a green card -

    5. Re:you know... by jungd · · Score: 1

      In fact, you still (usually) have to pay tax even without a green card. Fair enough I suppose, but I think (I/aliens) should be able to vote if we're paying taxes (perhaps after sone minimum years of residence - say 5).

      Of course that raises the question of if I should be allowed to continue to vote in Australia via postal vote too...

      --
      /..sig file not found - permission denied.
    6. Re:you know... by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > No tax without representation?

      I'm all for it. If the government is willing to stop taxing me, I'll be more than happy to give up my voting privileges in return :)

  9. Re:and the next prime minister is... by Petronius · · Score: 0, Funny

    Pat Buchanan of course.

    --
    there's no place like ~
  10. Justified by somethinghollow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course, all kinds of jokes come to mind. Did they outsource it? Blah Blah Blah.

    But, really, if they are able to make this work, perhaps some of the outsourcing the US is making to Inida can be justified with their ability to, at least, beat us on the e-voting front.

    That is still a big if. It's funny we are worried about fraud on our e-voting machines. They are worried about fights. Maybe if we started having fist fights at the booths all our e-voting woes will dematerialize.

    1. Re:Justified by manavendra · · Score: 1

      That is still a big if. It's funny we are worried about fraud on our e-voting machines. They are worried about fights

      You're right there. There are electorates that are prone to violence. Every year the government takes a lot of measures to try and curb these, and although the entire process is relatively peaceful in most of the country, there are incidents of violence, some of which are serious. Before every general elections, the Election Commission identifies certain violence-prone areas and makes efforts to deploy additional security forces to those areas

      But these incidents have been happening since a long time, even when there was a manual voting process.

      --
      http://efil.blogspot.com/
    2. Re:Justified by manavendra · · Score: 1

      Here is the link [Indian Express] that i was looking for while writing the parent. Excerpt:

      According to the EC, places like Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Dohad, Panchmahals, Banaskantha, Sabarkantha, Mehsana, Keda, Anand, Gandhinagar, Patan, Bhavnagar and parts of Rajkot have been the worst-affected by communal violence. The commission will closely watch over the deployment of security forces in these areas.

      --
      http://efil.blogspot.com/
    3. Re:Justified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? No Gudjarat?

  11. In other news... by weeboo0104 · · Score: 5, Funny

    India has just announced that they will be outsourcing all government officials and associated elections to the United States.

    An unamed individual was quoted saying, "This is a very positive move for India. The savings will be good for our country because the US has the most skilled politicians that can be bought for the lowest price."

    Back to you Kent.

    --
    It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
    1. Re:In other news... by maxbang · · Score: 1

      Thank you, Weeboo. And now for an in depth analysis of the voting system, our favorite Indian shopkeep who developed the system while studying at Calcutta Tech...

      --
      I also reply below your current threshold.
    2. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back to you Kent.

      Thanks Sanji Gupta

    3. Re:In other news... by Timo_UK · · Score: 1

      Most skilled politicians? Skilled in what? Making up reasons to go to war? Eating prezels?

      --
      Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
    4. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, that was the funniest thing I've ever read on slashdot (and probably anywhere.)

    5. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An unamed individual was quoted saying, "This is a very positive move for India. The savings will be good for our country because the US has the most skilled politicians that can be bought for the lowest price."

      What we need are free open source politicians. Then everyone could afford one, and it would be sort of like... democracy.

  12. Biometrics by pubjames · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Some "third-world" countries have difficulty keeping track of their population, in other words, some people simply are not registered on any lists. For those countries, using biometrics for voting actually makes sense, as it allows for "unregistered" people but disallows them from voting twice. In fact, it's a bit of a paradox - biometrics could actually be the answer for those people who don't like the government keeping records on them.

    1. Re:Biometrics by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Now remember, Vote Early, Vote Often. Thats how you get who you want into office.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    2. Re:Biometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government will then keep all it's records bound by biometrics...

      Biometric... the BEST id card number...

    3. Re:Biometrics by elcausado · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lemme get this right. You are proposing that every voting machine inform every other voting machine the biometrics of the person who has voted?

      Otherwise, all you would prevent is a voter voting twice on the same machine. In a country of a billion, I don't see how your approach would be feasible even in a country of a million.

      Even if you plan to check this at counting time as against at run time(er.. make that election time ;-) ), it still seems to be pretty difficult.

      --
      ------
      I believe in freedom of thought. I have no other choice.
    4. Re:Biometrics by maxbang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes. Instead of feeding and educating our people, we'll spend billions logging the entire population's fingerprints so they can vote and tell us they'd rather have us spend their taxes on better schools and more food!

      --
      I also reply below your current threshold.
    5. Re:Biometrics by pubjames · · Score: 1

      Lemme get this right.

      I was talking hypothetically. No country does this yet. However, I don't see why it shouldn't be possible in the near future.

    6. Re:Biometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does that mean that we could fly over and vote in one of their elections? Or would they be smart enough to exclude votes from "registered" foreigners.

    7. Re:Biometrics by micromoog · · Score: 1
      Why? A biometric is simply a number. Store it with each vote, then during the tally later tell the computer to remove any duplicates and count only the first vote by any given person.

      I'm not saying it's a good idea, or not full of other holes, but cheap technology is easily capable of doing that part.

    8. Re:Biometrics by bfields · · Score: 1
      Some "third-world" countries have difficulty keeping track of their population, in other words, some people simply are not registered on any lists. For those countries, using biometrics for voting actually makes sense, as it allows for "unregistered" people but disallows them from voting twice

      I'd like to see a "biometrics" system that

      • a) never falsely identifies two different people as being the same, as this would result in turning away a legitimate voter, and
      • b) identifies the same voter differently sufficiently rarely that it is difficult for a voter to trick the machine into allowing him/her to vote twice, and
      • c) is cheaper than traditional voter registration systems.

      This strikes me as, a best, a question for research.

      --Bruce Fields

    9. Re:Biometrics by dave1g · · Score: 1

      I would say only count the last vote, to allow for mind changes on election day, or possible mind changes after absentee ballots have been mailed in. (ballots sometimes change between those 2 times)

    10. Re:Biometrics by glgraca · · Score: 1

      Of course, more advanced nations have no trouble whatsoever in keeping track of all their mammal population: One dog, one vote

    11. Re:Biometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Identical twins?

    12. Re:Biometrics by elcausado · · Score: 1

      Well, we are all probably being too hypothetical but still..

      The chances are that the tallying isn't centralized either.

      Any non-centralized system would have the non-scalable problem of communicating with all others and making a system centralized would be a non-scalable problem in the first place!

      Or am I missing something here?

      --
      ------
      I believe in freedom of thought. I have no other choice.
  13. Re:The general optonion of India around here.... by millahtime · · Score: 1

    "Still, most people around here envy the indians."

    Envy Indians??? Are you nuts. There are over 1 billion of them. 4 times as many people as in the US. Can you imagine the traffic and congestion. The lack of privacy.

  14. Unwarranted scepticism by MHleads · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Will it work?

    Why so much scepticism? The electronic voting machines are being used in India from quite some time now. But this is the first time that the whole of the general election will be paperless. So it is just the matter of scale (1 million voting machines), which is of interest.

    1. Re:Unwarranted scepticism by WearyWanderer · · Score: 1

      The election being paperless is a big deal, not just the scale. I refer you to this past /. story on some of the problems with this type of system. It is concerning since this is the way the trend in voting is going toward in the US. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/03/14 56252&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=126&tid=172&tid= 99

    2. Re:Unwarranted scepticism by joseph_black · · Score: 1

      Here in Brazil the voting machines are also electronic (not sure if it is like that all of the parts of Brazil). It is interesting to note that Brazil and India (prolly some other countries too) have electronic voting, while the US (being a first world country) is still using paper. The only problem that I remember here in Brazil during the election was similar to that one in India. Where some ppl were trying to prevent the people from voting. I look forward to seeing the US changing to digital. (But I prolly wont be voting there anytime soon).

  15. 1st mover disadvantage by jacquesm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In many fields the 'rich west' will eventually be overrun by the third world.

    Why ? Because they have absolutely nothing holding them back, whereas we have a substantial investment in our current infrastructure.

    That makes us conservative - resistant to change - even if that change is for the better.

    Look at the entrenchement of MS for example. They will continue to receive cash that could have been spend better for a long long time to come.

    Meanwhile the rest of the world - the poor part that is - is absolutely free to adapt linux, not having a vested interest in 3rd party closed source they will outstrip the west in knowledge about these systems in a very few years.

    Unless of course we decide to 'move first' again.

    1. Re:1st mover disadvantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you suggest we should move preemptively to gain the first mover advantage? Yeah, that sure worked in Iraq. :) Being first isn't all it's cracked up to be. Hey, if India is first, then we can become the second movers that get the first mover advantage of moving to the next generation of technology.

  16. Indian Politics by galt2112 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Corruption and cronie-ism is rampant in Indian politics. No matter how accurate and tamper-proof the system is, the results will be disputed, and a paper ballot will ensue after huge expense.

    1. Re:Indian Politics by millahtime · · Score: 1

      " Corruption and cronie-ism is rampant in Indian politics."

      So, they really are trying to be just like the US

    2. Re:Indian Politics by __aaveti3199 · · Score: 1

      Corruption and cronyism, with a few exceptions, are endemic everywhere politicians are found. Whilst we enjoy depicting countires with lower GDP then our own as more corrupt it is not exactly accurate. India is a well entrenched democracy and little more likely to have a disputed election then the USA and UK.

    3. Re:Indian Politics by galt2112 · · Score: 1

      It is accurate. I read the newspapers in the U.S.,and 3 of my best friends at work are from India. I have been regaled with stories of exactly what I cited. So please don't respond to postings unless you know what you're talking about, which you don't.

    4. Re:Indian Politics by __aaveti3199 · · Score: 1

      I read newspapers as well, I've also worked in first world government for six years and I too have friends, some of them from Nigeria and Pakistan. There is corruption here, there is corruption there. The only difference perhaps is our politicians get their hands on more money. We could bat this back and forth for days without agreement but there is no need for you to take that snappish tone with me.

  17. Electronic Voting by ke4roh · · Score: 5, Informative
    Electronic voting in the U.S. is only slightly different from that in India. The systems in India have simpler hardware and software, leading me to trust them more - but still not as much as a piece of paper.

    India's system is a simple box that counts. The system in the U.S. is typically more like an automated teller machine (ATM) with a computer behind it.

    The Mercuri method of electronic voting allows the voter to inspect a paper printout of the cast ballot before it lands in the box for use only in the event of a recount. Brazil (and other places) use it. I would like to see it in use wherever direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting is used.

    The big quirk in the United States is the decentrallized nature of the voting systems - every county (of which there are about 3400) selects its own voting machines, ballots, and so forth.

    --
    I hate call waitin`~+~~~
    NO CARRIER
    1. Re:Electronic Voting by IncarnadineConor · · Score: 1

      Here in Rhode Island the voting machines are like that. We connect lines on paper ballots with a special marker and then feed them into a machine that scans in the votes. So you get an electronic tally but still have the paper trail. Hell, here at URI we use them in our student senate elections. I don't know why they aren't put into use elsewhere. They seem pretty difficult to screw with and I would imagine not all that expensive.

    2. Re:Electronic Voting by rsidd · · Score: 1
      Electronic voting in the U.S. is only slightly different from that in India.

      Just as a modern PDA is just "slightly different" from a 1980s non-programmable pocket calculator.

      The systems in India have simpler hardware and software, That's a huge understatement. See here and here for example: the machines cannot be reprogrammed without inserting a new chip on which you have burned the new machine-language program, and even then they have tamper-detection mechanisms. No touchscreens, no Microsoft Windows, just push-buttons and rather simple electronics. That's really all you need.

    3. Re:Electronic Voting by aggieben · · Score: 1

      Electronic voting in the U.S. is only slightly different from that in India. The systems in India have simpler hardware and software, leading me to trust them more - but still not as much as a piece of paper.

      You would trust a piece of paper more than an electronic system? If you sit down and line up all the risk factors involved in each type of system, I think the electronic vote would be far more reliable and tamper-proof than paper could ever be. Just think: anyone in the world can interfere with a paper vote. All you have to do is gain physical access to the ballots (which would not be hard, even for an idiot). Once you have physical access, you can do almost anything you want. On the other hand, by having votes be recorded electonically, you have already cut the number of possible malicious agents to a fraction of what it was simply because most people wouln't know how to manipulate such a thing even if they somehow got access.

      Further, there are well-known cryptographic measures that can be put in place that would further cut down on the number of potential malicous agents. By the time you've put the best security in place that you can, the number of malicious agents out there that would have the ability to manipulate the votes is reduced to almost nothing compared to what it is with paper votes.

      That's just the risk of interference factor. Reliability also falls in favor of electronic votes.

      In electronic voting, votes are completely orthogonal. You either vote FOR someone or AGAINST someone; there are no hanging chads. Voters can still make mistakes (i.e., vote for the wrong candidate) of course, but only the voter can fix that problem. Also, the possibility of votes being changed while being transmitted can be reduced to practically nothing by using cryptographic techniches along with well-known channel coding schemes.

      I think fear of electronic ballots is fueled by ignorance and misinformation; however, it does raise my eyebrow a little bit when slashdotters fall for the same misinformation and participate in the irrational hysteria often associated with e-voting.

      --
      Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
    4. Re:Electronic Voting by ke4roh · · Score: 1
      You would trust a piece of paper more than an electronic system?

      Yes, because I can watch the paper myself, with my own eyes. Anyone can guard the ballot box, too. The electronic system cannot be so carefully guarded against nefarious programming or vote tampering. Paper can tell how it has been produced and handled when inspected closely enough, but bits do not track their history. So yes, I trust paper more.

      See Rebecca Mercuri's Statement on Electronic Voting for details. Mercuri was one of the first on the scene after the Florida election glitch in the 2000 Presidential election because she'd already written a Ph.D. dissertation on electronic voting. Few people had expressed interest before then.

      In electronic voting, votes are completely orthogonal. You either vote FOR someone or AGAINST someone; there are no hanging chads.
      Direct Recording Electronic, internet, and telephone voting (see electronic voting) do not allow for the voter to be ambiguous, but mark-sense and punch card voting both can have problems with ambiguity. There are benefits and drawbacks to each type of voting.

      Also, the possibility of votes being changed while being transmitted can be reduced to practically nothing by using cryptographic techniches along with well-known channel coding schemes.
      This is good - but the real challenge when we start to use cryptographic solutions to voting problems is that most people don't understand how it works. Consider David Chaum's brilliant scheme for allowing you to take a recipt to verify that your actual vote was counted, but to not reveal how you voted unless you happen to have that other piece of paper that you destroyed at the ballot box. It's a beautiful system for verifyability, but it falls flat because a room full of computer scientists don't understand it in minutes - so the average election supervisor surely won't understand it in a few hours.

      I wouldn't say I have a fear of electronic voting systems. I simply have a fear of trusting my votes to a computer running a program written by a fallable, corruptable human being on a system designed and built by the same sort of human - and depending on all of it to work reliably without any sort of audit trail.

      --
      I hate call waitin`~+~~~
      NO CARRIER
  18. Indian democracy by PlatinumInitiate · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now India has an interesting democracy - a 22-party coalition (which is expected to win this election as well) in control of the government. That's quite a refreshing change from the point of view of someone in an (effectively) one-party state like South Africa (with the African National Congress getting a controlling 69% in the recent election). I'm not sure which would be better, 2 strong parties, like in the US, or dozens of small parties forming coalitions, like in India. I would guess that the coalitions would allow for more fluidity in politics than 2 (or a few) strong parties.

    1. Re:Indian democracy by raj2569 · · Score: 3, Informative

      India too was basically an one party system initially after independence. But as democracy matured, more and more regional parties got represented in parliament and thus the coalition. Such diversity in parties and points of views are natural in a diverse country such as India.

      raj

      --
      Sarovar.org Hosting for open source projects in Indi
    2. Re:Indian democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two meaningful parties like in the US is obviously too few, as issues too easily become partisan, black-and-white issues, and thoughtful, meaningful, reasonable discussion becomes hard.

      In much of Europe, there are typically four or five big parties, which seems better. I'm not sure where the point of diminishing returns is, perhaps it would even be reasonable not to have political parties, at all, just individuals.

    3. Re:Indian democracy by pubjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure which would be better, 2 strong parties, like in the US, or dozens of small parties forming coalitions, like in India.

      I believe Israel is also similar to India in this sense.

      I'm not a big fan of the two party system (the UK is much like the US in this respect), because it divides everything into left or right, black or white. The opposition always tends to feel the need to support the opposite of whatever the current administration stands for. That's why I encourage people to vote for minor parties - if nobody does because "they'll never win" then we will always be stuck with the two party system. (UK folks - vote Liberal Democrat in the next elections!)

    4. Re:Indian democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mmm...

      while generally more parties does mean more choice for the voter, it really does come down to the parties...

      you can have two and have ppl complain that thier policies are very similar or have 22 and still have ppl complaining abt the lack of true options...

    5. Re:Indian democracy by jacoplane · · Score: 1

      In the Netherlands we always have coalition governments too. I am really glad this happens, as it takes the ideological edge out of politics, and ensures our politicians act in a pragmatic way.

    6. Re:Indian democracy by mwood · · Score: 1

      Or no parties at all.

    7. Re:Indian democracy by YetAnotherGeekGuy · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure which would be better, 2 strong parties, like in the US, or dozens of small parties forming coalitions, like in India.

      To think that the US has "2 strong parties" is a pretty static view of US politics. Actually, the Democratic and Republican parties "rediscover" themselves every 4 years. They have vested interests, not unlike the splinter parties in a parliamentary system, that are basically historical reminants from the last cycle. On average their splinter constituencies norm to the "conservative" / "liberal" attribute that everyone labels the parties with. But because they have essentially "worked out" the power sharing stuff before the election, they sidestep the paralyzing impact of splinter politics that plague parlaimentary systems during their term of office.

      --

      to the Engineer, the glass is neither half full nor half empty. Its just two times too big.
    8. Re:Indian democracy by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      (UK folks - vote Liberal Democrat in the next elections!)

      I for one shall surely do so. The day I vote for a Tory is the day Beelzebub buys a toboggan, but I don't think I could bring myself to vote for Blair, not after all the fun of last year.

      I can't help but wonder - why is the leader of a nominally socialist party tied into this destructive alliance with the most frightening right-wing rabble seen in a Western democracy for half a century?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    9. Re:Indian democracy by Cecil · · Score: 1

      Haha. Are you actually in favour of the US 2-party system? Haha. Unbelievable.

      I never thought I'd see the day.

    10. Re:Indian democracy by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``To think that the US has "2 strong parties" is a pretty static view of US politics. Actually, the Democratic and Republican parties "rediscover" themselves every 4 years.''

      However, the system itself is very static, because of the ``winner take all'' method. Consider a system with two big parties, A and B, each drawing around half of the votes, so that we can truly speak of a two party system. Now, a third party, C enters the picture, which appeals mostly to people who, in C's absence, would have voted for B. Some of these people will now vote for C instead. There are three possible outcomes:

      - Very few people vote for C. The situation stays largely as it was. A or B wins the elections.
      - Very many people vote for C. B is reduced to virtually nothing. A or C wins the elections.
      - Some people switch to C, others stay with B. B nor C gets enough votes to compete with A. A wins the elections.

      As can be seen, the entry of a new party in the system either sustains the two-party system, or so heavily divides one side of the political spectrum that the other side is sure to win, which is highly undesireable from a democratic point of view.

      Another issue with the ``winner take all'' approach is that representation is not really in accordance with votes. If, in every electoral zone, some people vote for some party, but not enough to beat any of the other parties, all these votes are lost in the sense that they will not be represented in the government.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    11. Re:Indian democracy by bfields · · Score: 1
      That's why I encourage people to vote for minor parties - if nobody does because "they'll never win" then we will always be stuck with the two party system.

      And if one of the really does win big, then you'll just end up with another two-party system, with different parties. This has happened before. It's just the way the US government (like other governments dominated by two parties) is structured--there's no advantage to coming in second in an election (unlike in a system with at-large candidates that can form coalitions), so there's no benefit to voting for someone that doesn't have a reasonable chance of winning, so noone sane is going to throw a lot of resources behind a clear third-place candidate. For this reason presidential elections in particular will always be dominated by a couple of very centrist candidates.

      So if you really want to see viable third parties then you need a constitutional amendment, or two or three.

      Personally I'd rather expend my political energy elsewhere....

      --Bruce Fields

    12. Re:Indian democracy by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

      ``I'm not sure which would be better, 2 strong parties, like in the US, or dozens of small parties forming coalitions, like in India.''

      From a democratic point of view, dozens of small parties are much to be prefered. Voters get much more detailed control over politics, and a much broader range of views get represented and expressed.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    13. Re:Indian democracy by binbag · · Score: 1

      I'm not a big fan of the two party system (the UK is much like the US in this respect), because it divides everything into left or right

      Shouldn't that be right and right?

    14. Re:Indian democracy by manavendra · · Score: 1

      Because everything in life is not necessary clearly demarcated in black and white, it is necessary to have as many parties/people/people's representatives standing up for being counted in the Indian "general" election.

      1. If the people of a constituency are unhappy with all the major parties, they can choose to elect an "independent" candidate - a candidate who does not belong to any political party and contends the election on his own agenda.

      2. If enough number of people feel their voices are not being heard, they can nominate and then fruther elect their own (independent) candidate. There have been incidents in the past where candidates belonging to a particular caste, social or economic strata or even sex (not just men or women, there have been several eunuchs who have stood up and contested elections because they felt the state did not treat them right).

      3. These independent candidates can then choose to continue standing alone, or as is the usual case, if elected, join another political party but carrying their own agenda and political weight with them. Of course, they also do this simply for money :-)

      4. Of course, with more political parties, there is more mayhem. The current BJP government was once "in power" for only 13 days because it failed to prove its majority in the general assembly (that is, it did not have enough elected candidates supporting it)

      I don't think having multiple political parties is all good. Yet, I firmly believe it emphasizes the true notion of democracy

      --
      http://efil.blogspot.com/
    15. Re:Indian democracy by vivian · · Score: 1

      why is the leader of a nominally socialist party tied into this destructive alliance with the most frightening right-wing rabble seen in a Western democracy for half a century?

      Because there is actually not too much difference between New Labor and Conservatives, Republican and Democrat on the political scale, according to The Political Compass.
      Try the test and see which party is really right for you.

    16. Re:Indian democracy by rpillala · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it's a little misguided to think of the Democrat and Republican parties as two strong parties. They are very much the same in their obeisance to paymasters. I don't know if the situation in India is similar, with monied interests having huge influence. The fact of the two major parties in the US creates barriers to entry into the election market (let's not pretend) which you can see in the fact that Ralph Nader was not allowed to attend presidential candidate debates in the 2000 race. Attend. Like sit in the audience. Both parties had their reasons for keeping him out I guess, but they shouldn't be in control of who gets to participate in the debate. In a larger sense as well.

      Ravi
      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    17. Re:Indian democracy by ajayvb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At least in the Indian context, the multi-party system seems to be working albeit with flaws. It implements a system of checks and balances ( within the government itself) which keeps some of the more excitable extreme right Hindu fundamentalist elements in the leading colaition party (the BJP) in check. It does fail occasionally though.

      Of course, it is important that the parties agree on a minimum set of values, which is done by having a minimum point agenda, that everyone agrees on before entering the coalition. Otherwise,it is likely that there will be differences even on petty matters, as parties try to score political brownie points over each other.

    18. Re:Indian democracy by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I thought that the Parliamentary system was the most common form of democracy - where a bunch of parties have some amount of influence, rather than just two that have about 49% or so, and some minor ones that account for a percent or two. For one, I'm disappointed in the US two-party system, divided between the clowns and the yokels, and that each party pretty much has a main platform which few people in the party deviate from on more than one "key" issue.

    19. Re:Indian democracy by Captain+Large+Face · · Score: 1

      The UK is thankfully not as skewed as the US party system, but it is still pretty depressing.

      There is so little to choose between New Labour and the Conservatives, simply because people don't care or understand politics, nor believe that their vote will have any impact.

      You recommend voting for the Lib Dems. They will replace the Tories in about 15 years (when the last remaining Tory voters have died of old age), and then we're back in the same shit situation.

      You shouldn't vote for someone because they're not the main two. People need to get off their collective arses, and read about what each party believes in and then make an informed decision.

    20. Re:Indian democracy by notcreative · · Score: 1
      The two party system in the US was formulated in response to "factionalism" in other countries. Israel is a good example of factionalism gone horribly wrong. You have a party with a plurality but not a majority that needs to ally with tiny parties in order to form a government. These tiny parties can be one issue parties, and that means that extremist positions (settlements in the West Bank) get way too much attention from the government, since those parties make their positions a condition of support.

      In the US we have the same psychos on either end of the spectrum, but the need to win elections brings both parties closer to the center.

      I also disagree with your assertion that the two party system means that the opposition always needs to support a position opposite to the current administration. There are plenty of issues upon which the Dems and Repus agree, but those issues get no press, because it isn't very interesting to read about politics without adversarialism.

    21. Re:Indian democracy by venkats · · Score: 1

      While I do think that a 2-party system leaves voters with no much choice, i think that a multi-party system like in India (where there are, well, 20 odd parties contesting at the national level) doesn't mean to provide voters a good choice either. a government with a huge number of coalition parties is not particualarly stable, and hence the guy who manages the show as the head of the govt (the Prime Minister, in India) has to compromise on a host of issues that'd better be dealt with but aren't. All this just to keep the coalition members happy and ensure there are no "drop-outs" of the coalition. In the end, its a negative sum game for almost everyone (except the politicians, of course).
      Also, note that a political coalition does not necessarily mean that all the parties involved are on the same ideological platform. I think a coalition is more like a cabal.

    22. Re:Indian democracy by demachina · · Score: 1

      "will always be dominated by a couple of very centrist candidates"

      This isn't really true in the U.S. lately. The Republican candidates adopt a facade of centrist until they are elected and then they are anything but. George H.W. Bush might pass for a centrist but in his early political life he was a hard right Goldwater Republican and assumed the facade of centrist when he realized it was useful to getting elected. Reagan and George W. Bush are about as far right as they can get away with in America and since 9/11 George W. Bush is going off the deep end to the right because he can get away with it and its a trend that appears to be accelerating. It should be noted these are right wing presidents, not true conservatives as the claim. They aren't conservatives because they are more fiscally irresponsible than liberals and appear to be huge fans of massive growth in government and encouraging that massive government to intrude in the economy and in the private lives of Americans. I know many of you wont like the term but they really are starting to more closely resemble moderate Fascists than anything conservative.

      If the Republican's hold control of the white house and Congress in the next election and they can ram through a right wing appointment or two in to the Supreme court American government is going to be farther right than anyone would have ever imagined possible a few years ago.

      The Democrats on the other hand adopt the facade of being the party of the left during primaries to win the nomination from their liberal base and then abandon them as they swing hard to the center right to try and get elected. Kerry for example was a complete flop during the primaries running as a centrist so he stole Dean's mantle as a leftist, won the primary and is now swinging towards the center right, his first policy initiative after winning the nomination being tax cuts for business (kind of odd since 2/3 of U.S. corporations don't pay any taxes and overall they carry a much smaller tax burden than the middle class does now (especially since Bush slashed taxes for the wealthy, on capital gains and dividends). Kerry is branded as a liberal but the record that is based on came during a period when the Democrats dominated Congress, Congress trended liberal, and Kerry is notorious for voting which ever way the wind blows. All in all Kerry has a snow ball's chance in hell of winning the election because he doesn't really appeal to anyone. The Deomcrats desperatelky need to throw him out at the conventions and put someone like John Edwards in, he is inexperienced which is good since he doesn't have Kerry's dismal record, he is likable which Kerry decidedly isn't, and most of all Edwards isn't a rich New England liberal.

      There really is no liberal political party in the U.S. any more. The right has, over the last 25 years, successfully tarred the media as liberal and all liberals as dangerous. Through this campaign, and again with the aid of 9/11 they have pushed both the media and the Democratic party to center right which is a win/win for the hard right. The Democratic party no longer has any appeal to real liberals so they either vote for Nader or the Greens and waste their vote, hold their nose and vote Democrat because its less bad than Republican or don't vote at all. If the Democrats do win they are legislating at the center right. But, with this new world order the odds are stacked against Democrats winning anything anyway. They are now really just bad Republicans, they don't appeal to the right or the left, and they are bought and paid for by big corporations just like the Republican's they just aren't as good as the Republican's at selling out to corporate interests.

      --
      @de_machina
    23. Re:Indian democracy by bfields · · Score: 1
      "will always be dominated by a couple of very centrist candidates"
      This isn't really true in the U.S. lately.....There really is no liberal political party in the U.S. any more. The right has, over the last 25 years, successfully tarred the media as liberal and all liberals as dangerous.

      By "centrist" I meant "center of the spectrum of electable candidates", not "center of the spectrum of opinions that might be held by sane, informed people". I agree that the former is well to the right of the latter these days.

      --Bruce Fields

    24. Re:Indian democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that "democracy" is worthless if there are still massacres like in Gujarat. From what I heard, the BJP which is in power doesn't want to condemn the actions.

    25. Re:Indian democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "By "centrist" I meant "center of the spectrum of electable candidates", not "center of the spectrum of opinions that might be held by sane, informed people". I agree that the former is well to the right of the latter these days."

      Nothing of the sort is true. All it means is that you are even further off in the fringe wing.

    26. Re:Indian democracy by bfree · · Score: 1

      Well the problem is that Labour suddenly decided that perhaps going for Proportional Representation (as they had said they would) wasn't such a good idea when they suddenly found themselves back in power. The only hope for the UK to get out of the current mess is for the Lib Dems to actually follow through on their exceedingly long standing promise to bring in PR. Of course first you have to get the Lib Dems into power, the question is which would you see first, a LibDem+??? coalition bringing in PR or a Labour+Tory Coalition refusing to?

      --

      Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

    27. Re:Indian democracy by demachina · · Score: 1

      "has to compromise on a host of issues that'd better be dealt with but aren't."

      In my view the best government is the government that governs least. Parties get dangerous when they have largely unchecked power like the Republicans now have in the U.S. Governments are a lot happier and safer when there is grid lock because it prevents a party from adopting an extremist agenda to the detriment of the minority of the people. Democracy's are bad when some faction acquires a majority of say 51% and can then trample the other 49% with callous disregard. A good democracy strives to represent all people fairly and not just the majority even if that means some laws don't get passed or they have to be watered down.

      A government hamstrung by compromise like you describe really does sound pretty good versus what we have in the U.S. at present. If you have satellite and can get CSPAN just watch the house or senate proceeding in the U.S. today and watch what happens when a majority party can steamroller their agenda through while the opposition is largely powerless save for the genius of the Senate fillibuster which the Deomcrats only occasionally develop the backbone to use. Last year's Medicare reform legislation was a particularly blatant example of how undemocratic America is at present.

      --
      @de_machina
    28. Re:Indian democracy by YetAnotherGeekGuy · · Score: 1

      Are you actually in favor of the US 2-party system?

      Please don't mistake my comments as being an apologist view of the US's 2-party system. I merely point out that the parent view was over-simplified and missed some of the subtleties. I also point out one of the disadvantages of the Parliamentary system that this approach sidesteps. One need look no farther than the Israeli government to see the flaw of a Parliamentary government is only pouring gasoline on the flames of Palestine when they give the incremental power to make or break a government to the splinter parties. The 2-party system has its problems to be sure, but I merely point out that in actual practice it is actually more centrist (drives both parties to the middle) than the world view expressed above.

      I for one am glad that India is a democracy, Parliamentary or not, and am happy to see them exercise their mandate. I'm also keenly interested in the outcome and experience of using the technology, as it serves as a great empirical test case for this kind of solution.

      As Winston Churchill once said: "Democracy is the worst form of government known to man -- except for all the others."

      --

      to the Engineer, the glass is neither half full nor half empty. Its just two times too big.
    29. Re:Indian democracy by YetAnotherGeekGuy · · Score: 1

      However, the system itself is very static, because of the ``winner take all'' method.

      Of course it is. Think of it as a great example of the Nash equilibrium. Stability is one of the benefits that comes from this. Your examples are way too theoretical, so let's talk about some specific cases.

      First of all those aren't the only 3 possibilities. In 1860, the Democratic-Republican Party ("Party C") beat both of the predominant 2-parties, and Southerners from both parties, A and B, simply disolved the Constitution and created a new country. From this historical distance, it may look like a special case of your 2nd example, but again, all the parties redefined themselves after the Civil War, living on in name only.

      In the 1980s, Reagan carried the Republicans into power because traditionally Democratic Party blue-collar, working stiffs voted for him. The veneer of the parties stayed the same, but there was a wholesale shift of a major constituency underneath. And when the fiction of the Laffer Curve fell apart, they switched back and replaced the Republicans with the Democrats in 1992. [So in a way it was actually Regan's "voodoo economics" that gave us Bill Clinton (grin). But I digress.]

      Again in 2000, Party C, the Greens showed up with Ralph Nader. It basically cost the Democrats the election. In the static view, these voters would be Party C, forever. However, the way it is really playing out is that the Democrats have redefined themselves over the last 3 years and are making explicit overtures to those voters. Heck, Ralph Nader no longer feels that he can even call himself a Green.

      As a rough analogy, think of it as political capitalism -- not unlike like Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Each has a significant marketshare, and each is jockeying with the other to attract more people. There are still Orange Crush and A&W drinkers out there, but both companies augment their offerings with product that appeal to those drinkers as well. I don't know that I'd try and stretch the analogy much farther because softdrink markets are not politics.

      As far as "lost votes" go, you could easily make the case that its always true. For example, in the 2000 Presidential election, the majority voted against Mr. Bush. Were all those votes "lost"? Hardly, it just started the jockeying for votes in the 2004 election, where both parties are competing for the "swing voters". In fact it contributed to a significant change in the balance of power in the Senate , as Senator Jeffords felt compelled to change parties to realign with the results of his constituents and those "lost votes". This also points out, that static view of the 2-party system ascribes way too much power to the Executive Branch (President) in the US government. The Congress is much more fine grained.

      What you are really pointing out is that it requires a minimum "threshold" of public consensus to move the course of the 2-party system. IMHO, that's a good thing and in concert with the idea of a Representative Democracy. It basically introduces Histeresis or Capacitance, if you will, into the system to minimize the amount of undeliberated ideas that are specious. The fact that the majority parties are jockeying for constituencies as they redefine themselves every election cycle, allows the good ideas to pop to the top, keeps the bad ideas to a minimum, and allows time for rational thought to prevail over unfettered emotion.

      I certainly would be interested in others' thoughts on how these are addressed in India's elections, in particular, and in Parliamentary governments in general.

      --

      to the Engineer, the glass is neither half full nor half empty. Its just two times too big.
  19. Sure it will work by bigjnsa500 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Sure it will work, they don't have a state called Florida!

    --
    This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
  20. Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    it's india. Whether the politicians rig elections from bribes, extortion and ballot stuffing or just hack voting machines it doesn't change things. Granted electronic voting machines could make the rigging process more centralized and efficient (and perhaps more cost effective).

    1. Re:Does it matter? by pr80ik · · Score: 1

      The Electronic voting machines (EVM) in use are not connected to the central server. They just store the count of votes on some sort memory chip that the Election office has to get to a counting station to get the votes counted.

      Besides it will take some skills to fool the EMV, muscle power won't play its traditional role. These device is made my Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. And they say the device is pretty secured.
      Its been use for 10 years now but never on this large scale.

    2. Re:Does it matter? by pr80ik · · Score: 1

      oops! got the numbers wrong.

      the EVM was first used in Kerala Legislative Assembly election held in May, 1982 and first use in a national election was in 1999 election. the story is here
      a presentation small about how EMVs work is here

  21. Re:elephants - link and picture by raj2569 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    --
    Sarovar.org Hosting for open source projects in Indi
  22. Better than the old system by millahtime · · Score: 1, Funny

    I guess this is better than the old system. A hand count. I can just see them saying "Ok, everyone just keep your arm raised a little longer"

    Ah, progress

  23. The World's Largest Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is also the world's largest communist country. Which explains why they were able to jump so far ahead of the States in voting technology.

    Somewhere, McCarthy is rolling in his grave. We should pour some curry on him.

    1. Re:The World's Largest Democracy by xzap · · Score: 1

      dude...I'll be damned if anyone in India outside the state of West Bengal has even heard of communism :P :)

  24. Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regardless of the perty system, you're still stuck with the kaffas!!

  25. Voted in the morning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just voted in the morning. The Electronic Voting machines (EVMs) have been around in India since 5 years or so, but this is the first one in which they are used throughout India.
    The voting process is something like this,
    U go to the poll booth assigned, someone finds U in the printed list of voters for the booth, the candidates can have their agents sitting inside, who also verify that my name exists.
    The identification is via a electoral card or some defined photo-ids
    Next U get a ink mark on the index finger, whcih is supposed to be difficult to erase ( techniques to erase them are "well-known":-))
    After that U get a slip which is taken by next official who has to press a button to make the EVM operable. So there is a paper trail of who has voted.
    The EVM (as shown in the BBC article is a flat device with the names, symbol of the party and a LED and a button) When the official has given the go ahead, there is a green light on top; one has to press the button against the candidate, a red LED against the candidate glows and U are done.
    The procedure is quite simple and is lot better than the ballot paper stuffing before.

    The counting is done on a scheduled date, wherein all these EVMs are kept in a specified place and counting happens with the candidates' representatives around.

    1. Re:Voted in the morning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey moron.

      Are you so retarded that you cannot spell the word -y-o-u- ?

      What a prick.

    2. Re:Voted in the morning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for the description, however I notice that many electronic voting systems lacks many of the subtle safeguads protecting the democratic process:
      1) The system as describe seems vulnerable to the machine leaking your vote (say another LED lights up somewhere else). Alternatively, the usage of EM/Tempest monitoring.

      2) Is there a voter-audited paper trail.

      3) The cool thing about paper votes is that the system as a whole is simple understandable by almost the whole populous. It does waste paper, but the system scales (as voters increase, so does the number of counters). What does India (or any other country) really gain with electronic voting?

    3. Re:Voted in the morning by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      Let me answer that, as another resident Indian. With the earlier system, for one thing, counting is a mammoth task, given the total number of votes. Moreover, in several of the backward districts, booth-capturing, where goons hired by candidates disrupt the poll centres, even threatening voters to vote for a particular candidate, or forcibly stealing ballot paper and boxes and filling them and stuffing them (!!) has ocurred. These voting machines are more or less tamper proof: a vote once recorded on an EPROM remains there. Sure, you could probably open it up and reverse engineer it, or erase the EPROM-but thats more than you can expect from the illiterate thugs who are usually hired to do these things.
      Admittedly-during these elections, such incidents haven't ocurred so far. Instead-some candidates may resort to fooling illiterate voters-eg 'press any other button than the one for me and you will be electrocuted' or 'only press the button with the stoned monkey drawn on it'
      In the long run, the new system far surpasses the old one, both for faster counting and reliability.

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
    4. Re:Voted in the morning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it kill you to just type out "you" instead of stretching your right hand for a capital U every time?

  26. Sin by spellraiser · · Score: 1

    Mohammad Afzal, the first voter at the polling station in the Kashmiri village of Chainabal, was not put off by the threats from separatist militants.

    "I came to vote because wasting one's ballot in a democracy is a sin," he told the BBC.

    Heh, if this is true, it seems that with modern politics being what they are, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't!

    Let's see, it's a choice between

    1) Wasting your ballot by not voting

    and

    2) Wasting your ballot by voting for Yet Another Sleazy Politician Drone

    Man, I hope they at least have good beer in Hell ...

    --
    I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
    1. Re:Sin by shystershep · · Score: 1

      Sorry. The beer is more watered-down even than typical American beer, it's served warm, and to get any you have to listen to political candidates explain how much better things would be with them in charge.

      Why do you think they call it hell?

      --
      The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
    2. Re:Sin by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      You miss the point, though. And this is coming from someone who doesn't vote, because he doesn't want to encourage them.

      When there are a bunch of people who feel as Mr. Afzal does, you aren't nearly as damned as you are in the USA. Chances are, enough voters like him, and you could really stir things up, and demolish this 2 party bullshit.

    3. Re:Sin by mwood · · Score: 1

      Well, if none of the choices are appropriate, why aren't *you* running for office?

      I think Mr. Afzal's comment is spot on. We need more like him everywhere.

    4. Re:Sin by haystor · · Score: 1

      Mod parent (+1 Informative).

      Thanks for the info about the beer. How's the internet connection though?

      --
      t
    5. Re:Sin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      They don't call it AOHell because they use it in Heaven, you know....

    6. Re:Sin by Erwos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, 2 parties aren't good for expressing your exact political opinion, but the likelihood of either of them going too far from center as the party line is pretty low, since they'd only lose people. I'll take centrist, inclusive parties that only "pretty much" represent the majority of political views, rather than spawning a hundred extremist parties. That is to say, moderate politics tends to be the dominant mode of government, rather than the exception.

      It's like the gas station paradox of economics - the best place to put your gas station is dead center in the middle of town. And if you're starting a new one, it's still best to put it dead center in the middle of town, or as close as possible to it.

      There's also something to be said for not having your government fall apart every time a coalition has divisive issues to deal with. The Israelis, for instance, have this problem. Evacuate the settlements? Well, that's a great way to alienate UTJ and Likud, and if they happened to be part of the ruling coalition, well, the Israeli government falls apart until they can put a new coalition back together.

      I'm not trying to say that I think two parties is better or worse than 2+ parties - only that I think there are some advantages to the two party system that people don't talk about.

      I do agree with your sentiment that political participation in this country doesn't receive as much cultural emphasis as it should, though.

      -Erwos

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    7. Re:Sin by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that the benefits of a 2 party system outweigh what I see to be a inevitable stagnation they devolve to. It wouldn't hurt to mix things up every now and then, and lord knows we need it now.

    8. Re:Sin by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With that line of thinking, why not have one party state? One "centrist" party will solve the problem all together, no?

      The flaw with your opinion is that you fail to realize that the more parties you have, the greater the number of opinions, and hence dissent. The more the dissent, the more likely something will be thought out and debated.

      Even though goverments may fall apart under British-style systems, it is much better. Isreali government, for example, might fall apart but that is actually a good thing. The reason it happen is because the issue at hand is very important (at least from their perspective). In a one party, or two party state (like USA), such important debates will be watered down. I'm sure the two parties will "agree" and just end up passing a bill. For instance, consider how the existence of only two parties (that get more than 1% vote) means that something like war (say the Iraqi war) has zero dissent. Both the Democrats and the Republicans "agree" on everything. There might be some rhetoric one way or another but in the end it's all the same. In contrast, countries with more viable parties are far more democratic. Things like wars won't get a free pass with everyone "agreeing" on everything.

      (SIDE NOTE: I put agree in quotes because parties never agree in words. However, they do agree in practice under two party systems. For example, Kerry doesn't agree with Bush's Iraqi war if you just listen to his rhetoric. But in reality, he agrees with everyting Bush has done. In fact, he even voted for nearly all of Bush's decisions).

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    9. Re:Sin by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      "How's the internet connection though?"

      Blazing fast!

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
  27. Re:Not to sound jingoistic, by meringuoid · · Score: 1
    But Americans are not eager to have their fates decided by foreign voters

    Neither is anyone else, but hey, we all got used to it. Then we had to start getting used to having our fates decided by foreign judges, which was even worse...

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  28. some related links by ek-1000-ek · · Score: 5, Informative
    For the curious and restless

    Some pictures:

    http://specials.rediff.com/election/2004/apr/20ele cimg8.htm

    The elephant carrier news:

    http://www.hindu.com/2004/04/20/stories/2004042001 451300.htm

    Some candidates:

    http://specials.rediff.com/election/2004/apr/16bod y1.htm

    This is third time the EVMs have been used but first time for a national elections.

    --
    where did my sig go? where's my sig at?
    1. Re:some related links by vlauria · · Score: 1

      Why did you put spaces in your URLs?

    2. Re:some related links by ek-1000-ek · · Score: 1

      Strangely, I did not. I should have used preview to make sure URL was correct!

      --
      where did my sig go? where's my sig at?
    3. Re:some related links by andyrut · · Score: 1

      Slashdot automatically puts spaces in extra-long words so the text wraps nicely. It never hurts to just throw URLs into A HREF HTML tags so readers don't have to copy/paste them.

  29. Brazil got it first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    As a brazilian, I must point that we had our last elections for president using electronic voting machines too.


    The main issue is that the software used is closed-source, and it is closed even to the political parties involved in the election.


    But now there's some pressure to open-source the code, mostly by the left-winged parties (PDT, PC do B, PSTU, PT and smaller ones). And there is a good chance that it may happen, because our current governament is supporting, and recommending, opensource software.


    With some work, in the future Brazil may be the fist country to use full electronic elections, with full open-souce software!

    1. Re:Brazil got it first... by EduardoFonseca · · Score: 1

      Thank god we don't have Bush, Diebold or Enron here.

      Because It will happen. I can already see the actions taking place.

    2. Re:Brazil got it first... by pangian · · Score: 1

      Yes, and then the same machines that have been used and trusted in Brazil election machines were used in Angola in 1992. Only in Angola UNITA claimed that they spewed out fraudulent results and the country fell into 10 years of bloody civil war.

      And electronic voting in India will likely work fine if it is done in a way that people are able to trust. Giving all parties access to inspect the equipment and every stage of the process (as seems to be the case) is vital to achieving this.

      Meanwhile, electronic voting will likely be problematic in places like Kazakhstan where the government is getting machines from that bastion of democracy, Belarus, and where indications are that this sort of access will not be granted to independent and party monitors.

      The moral of the story is that the process of adopting a new voting technology matters. Maintaining (or gaining) public trust in the election process requires that the public have access and ability to oversee all procedures and equipment. (Including the ability to verify results through a hand count if necessary.) This, in my view, is the main problem with the move to electronic voting in the United States.

    3. Re:Brazil got it first... by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

      That, sir, is the most informative post I've read in the entire thread. I'm in awe of you.

    4. Re:Brazil got it first... by pangian · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Electronic voting happens to be one of those fancies that I get to tickle while on the clock.

      Talk to me about the relative advantages of KDE and Gnome or many other issues discussed on /. and you'll find me to be an idiot.

  30. voting machine security by andy1307 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't remember where i read this: The e-voting machines being used in India aren't networked. At the end of the day, the poll workers take the machines to the main district office and plug them into a network. The software on the machines itself isn't reprogrammable.

    1. Re:voting machine security by xpl_the_myst · · Score: 1

      I think this is the most crucial point. And this is why the US e-voting system is not really comparable to the Indian one. There's no idea of networking ... this is just a small level above ticking on a paper.

      --
      This sig is empty.
    2. Re:voting machine security by ms_drives_me_mad · · Score: 0

      That's right - they're not networked .. but the point is that it saves hell lot of paper. Now India is too big country with a big big population. Now analyse paper ballots for each guy in the population and boxes to store them. Counting process itself used to take a lot of time.EVM's save time and paper.Add that to cost of printing the paper. An estimate with the economic times(one of india's leading newspaper) showed that Elections 1996 used up 800,000 tonnes of paper and 400,000 tonnes of plastic. So you can just guess the amount of environmental benefit these non paper elections are doing...

  31. Re:Cheaper labor = better labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is nothing wrong at all with outsourcing.

    Says the man who's job hasn't been outsourced.

  32. I Voted Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am on my vacation in India and I used my franchise today. This was the first time I used a EVM(electronic voting machine). It was pretty cool. As from the local news, there were couple of issues with EVMs getting jammed and polling cancelled etc. Other than that, the machines behaved better than humans.

  33. BBC link about the voting machines. by Morrisguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For those who don't want to RTFA about the election itself , this BBC link within the story is about the voting machines themselves.

  34. Whiner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Says the man who's job hasn't been outsourced"

    The complainer whose job has been outsourced is nothing but a lazy whiner who believes that he is magically entitled to a job even though others can do it a lot better.

  35. why? by rfz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Brazil's last general elections were all electronic. No big news there. There is a single Brazilian system, where a different company designs each module. Party-appointed technical representatives can audit the whole system.
    India and Brazil have other things in common: illiteracy and poverty. Most of the users of the electronic ballots in Brazil cannot understand what they read on the screen. Electoral candidates in small towns "teach" people to vote on them, by making them memorize the key sequences.
    I just wonder if these countries couldn't be spending time, money, and minds on more relevant issues.

    1. Re:why? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      I just wonder if these countries couldn't be spending time, money, and minds on more relevant issues.

      Democracy: not relevant?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:why? by micromoog · · Score: 1
      Party-appointed technical representatives can audit the whole system.

      No they can't. Not when closed software is involved.

      In fact, not when software is involved at all (you can never be sure the code you saw is actually what the machine runs).

    3. Re:why? by MHleads · · Score: 1

      I just wonder if these countries couldn't be spending time, money, and minds on more relevant issues.

      Just imagine, printing 543 _different_ sets of ballot papers for 650 million voters! And then, manage the logistics of these ballot papers, count them by hand which can take anywhere from 12 to 48 hours.
      Indians have applied their mind and saved on this labour. No ballot papers and counting takes not more than few hours.
      Democracy IS a relevant issue!

    4. Re:why? by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1
      I just wonder if these countries couldn't be spending time, money, and minds on more relevant issues.
      Such as civil war and coup d'etats? :-)

      I don't know about you my friend, but the way I vote is a perfectly relevant issue for me.

  36. I loved this: by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Interesting
    "I came to vote because wasting one's ballot in a democracy is a sin," he told the BBC.

    This guy faced the threat of actual violence at the polls. He turned up to vote nonetheless. It's great to see that some people still believe in democracy.

    Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world in the homelands of democracy, the turnout at elections is what exactly, these days? And the danger we face on our way to the polls is... the prospect of injury caused by getting our fat arses off the sofa once every five years?

    Sometimes I think we deserve the George and Tony show, I really do.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    1. Re:I loved this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Sometimes I think we deserve the George and Tony show, I really do.

      Well, here in Brazil we are OBLIGED to go vote (for some things you need to show the papers proving that you voted last election). I think this is ridiculous, because the low turnaround in USA voting is a great sign that people don't buy the crap anymore (anyone else read that "Vote Republican or Democrat!" sarcasm page? enlightening).

      Capitalist democracies are a game with marked cards. You just can't win. No matter who gets elected, money and the market will control him. THEY(TM) will keep partying and you will end paying the bill as usual.

    2. Re:I loved this: by tormentae+agent · · Score: 1
      Sometimes I think we deserve the George and Tony show, I really do.

      Yes, but does the rest of the world deserve them?

  37. India outsourcing alone! by raj2569 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If jobs are moving to India, blame your managers and politicians. Not Indians. We are also equally hardworking as Americans and will grab any opportunity that comes across...

    raj

    --
    Sarovar.org Hosting for open source projects in Indi
  38. ballot stuffing.. by 8086 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's a good move because the size of our population. I heard from a government employee who worked in the state elections that Ballot stuffing is common. One of the leading parties is actually paying election workers to 'press the button' for them on the machines. This was not so convenient before. This happened in the state elections for sure, and will probably happen in the nationals too. The market for illegally made 'homebrew' weapons (costing as less as $30) is flourishing as the election arrives. Efforts have been made for security of election booths, but it's doubtful how security will fare against bribes. The routine election-season killings have already started. On the whole, introducing e-voting in India is like throwing water in a puddle of mud - you can move faster in it, but it makes you much dirteir all the same.

    1. Re:ballot stuffing.. by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1
      Two points:

      a) Look at the numbers; election-season killings have seen a decline in the past few years.

      b) Geeks take a while to appreciate this, but never has technology ever solved social problems. At best, it has made existing responses more efficient, but never has it alone made things more effective

  39. Re:The general optonion of India around here.... by ek-1000-ek · · Score: 1
    The lack of privacy.

    Actually there is more privacy in India. Sort of 'anonymity' due to 'multiplicity'. Been there, felt that.

    --
    where did my sig go? where's my sig at?
  40. My parents voted by GillBates0 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Talked to my folks ...they voted yesterday (I reside in the US). They were happy and kinda proud about the new e-voting machines.

    Their knowledge/usage of computers is limited, and I would put them in the same space as the average Joe/Jane American as far as computer/security knowledge is concerned.

    I tried explaining that just a fancy GUI and interface doesn't make for a better voting process, and that the programs/algorithms need to be checked for correctness and security. I don't think the importance of it seeped through - and they still gushed about the fast/easy and hi-tech voting process.

    That's about it...I guess the good part is that the machines are mostly firm/hardware and not the beefed up (down?) Windows machines like Diebold's ATM machines in the US. The machines are made by a company called Bharat Electronics. Unfortunately it looks like their server is ASP/IIS based.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:My parents voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter what their server is running because notes are not tallied over the network. It seems they bring all the voting machines together in one place and tally there. My guess is that they hook them up one at a time to computers that aren't connected to an outside network.

  41. Vote of no confidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I am not sure how this would actually work in our current system.

    Given two non-viable choices, instead of not casting a ballot, actually vote, but withhold your vote from unacceptable candidates .

    I don't know if you can cast a ballot but not vote for any of the candidates. You might have to select someone from the local looney party. Or just vote for the best choice, ignoring any considerations of "electability".

    The "options" that our "two party system" currently foist off on the public are pathetic. Fuck, they're both Boneseman, you might as well just vote a straight Illuminati ballot.

    1. Re:Vote of no confidence by uberslack · · Score: 1
      --
      Just because you're paranoid does not mean that the world is not full of assholes.
    2. Re:Vote of no confidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess I'll be voting for nobody after having my retinas permanently burned by the horrid formatting on that page.

    3. Re:Vote of no confidence by danila · · Score: 1

      Called protest voting, it is quite popular (by necessity) in many places in the world. In Russia we vote for "Protiv Vseh" candidate ('against all') and in many elections this fella collects 10% of the votes and more. Often there are people campaigning for him (her?). During the 1996 presidential elections Protiv Vseh got as much as 8% in several regions. According to the law, if the Protiv Vseh candidate wins the election, they are declared void. This has never happened yet in federal elections (state parliament or president), but it did happen in small regional elections several times.

      It is believed that this candidate was originally added to the ballots during Soviet time, to help maintain the illusion of competitive elections. :) It is said that you should expect bad things happening to your career if you lose an election to Protiv Vseh. Kinda like losing to dead guy...

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  42. Like to see voting like here in Brazil by agoliveira · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We have 100% e-vote for several years already and, we are a quite big country with very remote areas. Probably it's not as big operation as in India but quite big as well.
    Another very interesting feature we have here is the possibility to follow results in real time via web or a java program (which I run on my linux box ;) ) that connects directly with the central servers that count the votes.
    As for the security, the source of the system is not generaly open but any representative of any party can ask for review, random audits are made in the ballots and a part of them print the vote for the voter.

    --
    Scientia est Potentia
  43. I Just Voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Last Year they gave all the registered voters photo identity cards , using Biometrics even our thumbimpression is in their system,

    Hold the "illitracy" jokes(i am typing this arent i)

    then they sent a slip telling us where we have to go to cast out vote , even the booth no.

    they had 2 EVMs 1 4 parliamentary election and another for local assembly elections,

    they ofcourse put the customary indelible ink on the left index finger. probably becoz some people feel nostalgic of the "gud 'ol days"

    when u cud raid a polling booth and take away the ballot boxes

    and then cry foul play!!!

    hav phun

  44. Outsource US elections to India! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is how it worked for me today:

    1. You need a voter id card. If you don't have that, any govt. id is supposed to work.

    2. They check your name twice against two hardcopies of the voter lists. In addition, the larger parties have their own guys hanging around with their own copies of the voter lists to make sure there's no mischief.

    3. You sign or fingerprint against your name in a ledger.

    4. Next you get a dab of indelible ink on your left index finger.

    5. Finally, they enable the EVM by pressing a master key. A green light comes on on the box.

    6. You get to vote. The green light goes off, and the button you hit goes red. After a delay of about 5 seconds, it beeps and goes off.

    What could be easier?

    Surely even americans might be able to follow the above.

    Why don't you guys outsource your next election to the Indian Election Commission and you won't get that miserable failure as a president for the second time?

    1. Re:Outsource US elections to India! by linuxperformer · · Score: 2, Funny

      None can beat Americans in items 3, 4, 5 though. By any chance, have you been to the immigration section of any airport lately?

    2. Re:Outsource US elections to India! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what could be easier?
      --> stay at home/work .
      clearly there is enough disincentive to vote in a ridculously large democracy, because there will always be a sufficient number of idiots/fanatics that ensure that the incompetent always rule.

    3. Re:Outsource US elections to India! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, enough ppl like that and we have a complete victory for the fanatics. you are in america I hope.

  45. Re:Cheaper labor = better labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Says the man who is job is not being outsourced"?

  46. Results outsourced? by eaddict · · Score: 1

    Can they at least outsource the tallying of the results here to the US?
    Our Supreme Court is very good at helping people count since most folks can't do it themselves.

    --
    "If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
  47. Very dangerous! by Tuxinatorium · · Score: 0

    Now one hacker really can rule the planet!

  48. domino theory by moviepig.com · · Score: 1
    Could the success of eVoting lead to all-Internet voting? ...and from there to legislation via frequent binding direct referenda, i.e., whereby you rather than your congressperson votes?

    (Whether good or bad, such times would be anything but dull.)

    --
    Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
  49. Blame the losers losing the jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "If jobs are moving to India, blame your managers and politicians. Not Indians"

    Don't blame even them. Blame the former workers for giving away their jobs by not doing them as well as the Indians.

    1. Re:Blame the losers losing the jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, I still blame the managers. I have nothing against Indians taking outsourced jobs. They need the money, and it's not like they're doing a bad job of it. But corporations here in the U.S. are really short-sighted, oriented towards the next quarter's results. The problem is, this can often bite you in the ass in the long run, which is where I see this outsourcing thing ultimately ending up. The software industry has the potential to become the next steel/textile industry here in the U.S., which would suck.

  50. Information by sameerdesai · · Score: 1

    Interestingly even on an election topic people talk about outsorcing. Interesting isn't it? Well matter of fact is I have voted on Electronic voting machines on two elections already and this was at least 4 years ago. It is interesting that technologically advanced country like US cannot go to EVMs ... I would say its pretty straight forward as pushing a button to turn on or off your light. It's very simple, easy and "not confusing".

  51. In related news... by mek2600 · · Score: 1

    ... 'mek2600' has just been elected the newest leader of India! In a statement to the press mek2600, and English-speaking American said, "The 2600 in my name has nothing to do with hacking, hackers, or anything like that. I won this election in Indiana fair and square. What? I won in India? Not Indiana? Damn typos."

  52. Re:Not to sound jingoistic, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But Americans are not eager to have their fates decided by foreign voters

    That's rather ironic, since Americans aren't at all shy about deciding the fates of foreign voters.

  53. Hybrid System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it would be best to come up with a hybrid system.

    The voters would enter their votes into an ATM-like machine, which would print out a paper ballot with both human-readable and machine-readable choices printed on them. The voter could check the names to make sure they did it right, then put a thumb-print on the ballot. Then the ballot could be fed later into a counting machine. There could be a sample counting machine on the premises, so that any voter could pass their ballot through the machine to make sure their ballot would be scanned correctly.

    Later on, if charges of voter fraud came up, all ballots with the same thumb-print would be disqualified.

  54. What machines? What software? by jabber01 · · Score: 1

    Did they use the Diebold machines?

    What does the US Constitution say about GW Bush being "elected" President in two countries at the same time?

    --

    The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
    What you do today will cost you a day of your life

  55. Re:Not to sound jingoistic, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "That's rather ironic, since Americans aren't at all shy about deciding the fates of foreign voters."

    Yes. By promoting democracy and ensuring that their voices count.

  56. Re:India outsourcing alone! by raj2569 · · Score: 1
    Well,

    in case some one pokes a joke on parent's subject line, I was actually trying to get <> in between India and outsourcing, but hit submit instead of preview!

    raj

    --
    Sarovar.org Hosting for open source projects in Indi
  57. Does it matter by slmdmd · · Score: 1

    Choose your candidate
    a) Criminal A b) Criminal B c) Criminal C ... z) Criminal Z
    In the US u are brain washed by TV channels.(parties pay the channels) In India u are bribed.(Sarees, Lungi, cash, booze etc..)
    The big spender is the winner. Darwin's law clearly states that winner is always the fittest(Money).
    Leave the election matters to the professional criminals. Everyone is making their money, we are making ours, be happy.
    No need to envy Indians, Everything is round in the universe. What ever goes down has to come up and what ever goes up has to come down. Change is the only truth. Check the history, look at mongols then, US was a no man's land then, now look at US and mongols(Afghanistan/Iran).

    1. Re:Does it matter by nmosfet · · Score: 1

      Choose your candidate a) Criminal A b) Criminal B c) Criminal C ... z) Criminal Z Well at least now with electronic voting we won't need to choose which criminal will win. Now that's progress.

  58. Brazil uses electronic voting for more than 5 year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not just the last elections in Brazil was full eletronic, but the method is used from more than 5 years now. It is closed-source, but all the voting process is open and is audited by the parties. Even the common citizen can access the results instantly, and the final result is almost reached in the same day of the elections.

  59. OK, I have a serious question. by RCO · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is your system set up to allow votes for people not listed i.e. write-ins or do you have to select 'only' from the list provided?

    If you have to select from the list, can you withhold your vote on parts of the ballot because you don't like any of the candidates or does that invalidate the entire ballot?

    --
    'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'
    1. Re:OK, I have a serious question. by swapsn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is your system set up to allow votes for people not listed i.e. write-ins or do you have to select 'only' from the list provided?

      You are only allowed to vote for the candidates that have registered themselves ( whose names/symbols are present on the ballot paper/EVM )

      If you have to select from the list, can you withhold your vote on parts of the ballot because you don't like any of the candidates or does that invalidate the entire ballot?

      In case of any unauthorized marking the vote is invalidated.

    2. Re:OK, I have a serious question. by MHleads · · Score: 1

      Is your system set up to allow votes for people not listed i.e. write-ins or do you have to select 'only' from the list provided?

      You have to select "only" from the list.

      If you have to select from the list, can you withhold your vote on parts of the ballot because you don't like any of the candidates or does that invalidate the entire ballot?

      If it were paper-based, you could just drop the blank ballot in the box. But with EVM you have to press a button.
      The Election Commission of India is proposing Vote for nobody.

  60. Stealing the Vote by SlackwareGeek · · Score: 2, Informative

    Being a linux geek, I'm all for new technologies being used to make out lives easier, but there are too many special interests and flaws in the current method of E-Voting. The vast majority of E-Voting companies are really just one company that supports a biased outcome to the elections. Not to mention the fact that most of the E-Voting-Machines run M$. The state of E-Voting in america is really bad...

    From http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingSecurity.htm: If people are voting on machines, they are not voting at all. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court said that, A "legal vote," as determined by the Supreme Court, is "one in which there is a 'clear indication of the intent of the voter.'" If a machine is involved in the voting process, the voter has been relegated to making inputs and hoping that the machines' output is the same. That output can only be 'circumstantial' evidence of what the voter intended. It is the voters' right to create 'real' evidence of their own intention.
    peace

    --
    -- Slackware Geek
    Do not handicap your children by making their lives easy. - Robert Heinlein
  61. Re:Cheaper labor = better labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NOT "WHO'S"...IT'S "WHOSE"

    clearly the original poster is from India

  62. No problems-report from India by Prodigy+Savant · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am from and in India. AFAIK, we have not had any problems with these electronic voting machines. They have been in use for quite some time now, they were never used in all constituencies, however.

    The only potential problem with them that I have come across in local media reports is that of some political goons registering dozens of dummy candidates... their aim being to have more candidates in a constituency than the number of buttons on the machines :). The Election Comission would be forced to use paper ballots. These goons resort to capturing polling booths and electronic voting machines make their task tough.

    Now I guess these enterprising political goons will have to enlist hackers :)
    I am sure if there's an american hacker out there upto the task, he/she can reverse the outsourcing thing :)

    --
    Dont make a better sig, you insensitive clod!
    1. Re:No problems-report from India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      registering dozens of dummy candidates -

      what difference will it make in the results, given the population of India ?

      They will successfully influence 0.00004% of the votes maybe -

    2. Re:No problems-report from India by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      Now I guess these enterprising political goons will have to enlist hackers :) I am sure if there's an american hacker out there upto the task, he/she can reverse the outsourcing thing :)

      Hackers are not magicians.

    3. Re:No problems-report from India by Lagrange5 · · Score: 0

      This report seems to corroborate what you're saying, although its language is contradictory. Beyond the somewhat misleading headline, "EVMs make rigging easier," the body of the article finally says that stuffing ballot boxes is made more difficult, since only one person can cast one ballot at one time. Sure, one guy can leave, change his shirt and come back, claim another residence, and vote again. But to do it many times with hundreds of people is logistically improbable, thus narrowing the options for ballot-rigging.

      --
      "Folks just call him Buckethead." -- Les Claypool
    4. Re:No problems-report from India by Prodigy+Savant · · Score: 1

      Actually no... u cant change ur shirt and walk back in to vote again.
      Your name is in a voter's list that they cross out once you vote. Ofcourse, you might consider doing a proxy vote for someone whom you know hasnt turned up to vote. But then again, in India, they paint your right index finger with indelible ink once you have voted. _Indelible ink_ may not be foolproof either, but neither is it a total misnomer.

      As a side note, my mother voted for all the female names she could find in the list when she was in the near lawless state of Bihar supporting her brother, an aspiring Member of Parliament. This was some good 4 years back, they were regular paper ballots. (I am not making this up. and BTW, my Uncle did become an MP)

      --
      Dont make a better sig, you insensitive clod!
    5. Re:No problems-report from India by Lagrange5 · · Score: 0

      Actually no... u cant change ur shirt and walk back in to vote again.

      Just relating what was said in the article ... no opinion meant.

      --
      "Folks just call him Buckethead." -- Les Claypool
  63. Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just for information, here at Brazil our e-voting system is working for more then 4 years, and it works really well, with results for a nation wide votation within 3/4 days... this for a population of 170 millions...

  64. An interesting fact by Pranjal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The electronic machines were last used in elections to four different state goverments in december of 2003. Taking advantage of the fact that many voters in remote areas were illiterate and were using the electronic machines for the first time, the election volunteers instructed them to vote for a particular party only, explaining that, that is the only button that works on the machine.


    Now the interesting fact is that most of these volunteers were government employees and they were pissed off at the outgoing government for withholding their bonuses and they had a score to settle with them.

    So they instructed the poor illterate voters to vote for the rival party!

    I'm quite sure that there would be many such intances in this election of politicians exploting people's ignorance and getting them to vote for some party for which they might not have wanted to vote.

    1. Re:An interesting fact by xzap · · Score: 2, Informative

      interesting fact my ass, this might have happened at one or two places, but even illiterate people know the symbols of congress and BJP, the two major parties by heart. They could vote for the right party in their sleep :P

    2. Re:An interesting fact by zungu · · Score: 1

      Pranjal, I grew-up in India. I can say with some certainty that Indian voters are quiet smart even in illiterate. Now, I am saying a lot of them and not all of them. And it is human nature to try to see what would happen if some other (than the one they were tutored to press) button is pressed. I have personally known of instances where voters took freebies from all parties and voted for whom they wanted to. Elections in India run on caste lines. "H(ij)acking" caste leaders is much more effective than hacking the voting machines.

    3. Re:An interesting fact by varunrebel · · Score: 1

      I think u have exaggerated a lot.

      True there are a lot of illiterate voters in India but illiterate != dumb. Even people who cannot read and write know the election symbols of the major parties and also the independent candidates. And since a party can field only 1 candidate at the most from a constituency voters merely have to know which party their fav candidate belongs too (generally it is the other way round. ppl vote for parties and NOT for individuals)

      There were a number of rumours doing the rounds a few days before the actual elections. Some of them are:

      1) The EVMs (Electronic Voting Machines) are faulty and often give electric shocks
      2) EVMs were infected with viruses
      3) blah blah blah...

      However the EC (Election Commission) did a great job of dispelling these rumours. Kudos to them for doing a nice job in very difficult circumstances...

      --
      "Programming is like sex. Make one mistake and support it for the rest of your life !!"
  65. The real purpose of Diebold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It appears now that the real purpose of Diebold is to give the left-wing wackos an simple excuse to make the sore-loser case that Kerry (if he loses as Gore did when it comes to vote totals) really won.

    In 2000, the sore losers had to make up all kinds of convoluted stories in order to try to steal the election.

    Thank you, Diebold, for making it easier for the left to lie.

    1. Re:The real purpose of Diebold by jabber01 · · Score: 1

      Riiiight. Exactly the compassionate, conservative response one would expect.

      --

      The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
      What you do today will cost you a day of your life

    2. Re:The real purpose of Diebold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Exactly the compassionate, conservative response one would expect"

      It sure beats cold-hearted mean-spirited liberalism.

  66. E-Voting Machines in India... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder exactly how these things work. If you didn't know, much of India's population is illiterate and therefore people cast their vote by putting their thumb (finger print) next to the symbol of the party they want to vote for. I'm guessing (can't make it out from the picture in the article) that the e-voting machine is similar. I also wonder if this is successful will we see a machine with a donkey and elephant in the US?

  67. democracy? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Ya suuuuure they are....

    They may call it that but reality isn't always what its labeled as..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:democracy? by Dewin+Cymraeg · · Score: 1

      You could say that about any deomcracy in the world!

  68. Re:The general optonion of India around here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually there is more privacy in India. Sort of 'anonymity' due to 'multiplicity'.

    Ahh... similar to the very strong "security by obscurity" method.

  69. Re:Not to sound jingoistic, by Mant · · Score: 1, Redundant

    We are in way off topic land but...

    America has been more than happy to assits in the overthorwing of democracies when it suits them, like they elect a socailist government (Chillie), or they are planning to nationalise the oil reserves (Iran).

    It even happliy has allies like the brutal regimes in Uzbekistan because it suits their purpose.

    Now all countries act like this, in their own national interests. However, you can't claim any sort of moral high ground for American foreign policy, sure it has removed some brutal dictators, but has been happy to help install and work with others.

    Backing brutal and unpopular regimes abroad may be way a lot of the rest of the world does not see America as some guardian of freedom.

  70. Re:Not to sound jingoistic, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "America has been more than happy to assits in the overthorwing of democracies when it suits them, like they elect a [left-wing fascist] government (Chillie)"

    Allende by that time was a single-party state dictator. Chile under his fascist rule was not a democracy. Since you cannot even spell the name of the nation, it is not surprising that you do not know what happened there.

    or they are planning to nationalise the oil reserves (Iran).

    It was a similar situation in Iran. The new dictator was trying to make the oil reserves his own personal property (misleadingly called "nationalization").

    Backing brutal and unpopular regimes abroad may be way a lot of the rest of the world does not see America as some guardian of freedom.

    Since the US is the leader in opposing these brutal regimes, this problem of how the world sees America is more of a PR problem having to do with ignorance.

  71. Re:And in a related story... by raj2569 · · Score: 1, Funny

    More likely to be elected as US president.. Oh Wait!

    raj

    --
    Sarovar.org Hosting for open source projects in Indi
  72. Corruption? by idiot900 · · Score: 1

    It is common knowledge among Indians that corruption is rampant within the Indian government. I would be amazed if this is pulled off without serious problems.

    1. Re:Corruption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you just wanted to say something bad about india. sounded just like my recent-citizen ex-indian coworker.

    2. Re:Corruption? by dotslasher_sri · · Score: 1

      But its very hard to corrupt the election officers. Each candidate contesting in the elections assigns some representatives who will sit in the voting center and make sure no one corrupts the election officer against his candidate. if he tries to corrupt in favour of his candidate others will make sure he doesnt. So it runs fair (99%). If many complaints are made against a polling station that the election was not fair at that station there can be re election .

  73. The price is instability by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 4, Informative

    With this system, the ruling coalition often has a wafer-thin majority which means even an otherwise insignificant party with a small number of seats in parliament can exert and awfully strong influence on the government. The Prime Minister can be toppled pretty much anytime by losing a confidence vote. If the oppisition isnt't strong enough to form a majority coalition after that the only alternative is to dissolve parliament and hold general elections again.

    Although this government has lived out its full 5 year term*, there was a period before that when there were 3 general elections in a 5 year period. In addition to the obvious fiscal cost of polling 600 million people, this level of instability deters investors because they don't know when a new government will come in and change policy.

    That said, things seem to be maturing to a degree with parties that have caused governments to fall over minor issues suffering heavy losses in subsequent elections, so maybe we will see some happy middle ground where no party has a free hand, but the government mostly lives out its full term.

    * Actually they did decide to hold elections a little earlier than otherwise scheduled for political reasons

    1. Re:The price is instability by swapsn · · Score: 1

      ...can be toppled pretty much anytime by losing a confidence vote...

      You spell "lose" correctly. You are definitely not an american :-))

    2. Re:The price is instability by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      You spell "lose" correctly. You are definitely not an american :-))
      Actually I am... albeit of Indian origin

    3. Re:The price is instability by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1
      ... which means even an otherwise insignificant party with a small number of seats in parliament can exert and awfully strong influence on the government.
      You've just explained the Telangana Rashtra Samiti's business plan! :-)
      Although this government has lived out its full 5 year term
      An interesting trivia bit here, but technically speaking, no government since Independence has ever completed a full five-year term. Every incumbent government has traditionally called for snap polls before the completion of its term (mostly by weeks, but often by months; politicians count in years, not days or months). This government is, of course, unique in that they probably called for elections earlier than the average.
      this level of instability deters investors because they don't know when a new government will come in and change policy.
      There was a study sometime back which showed that the level of investment didn't taper off during any election.

      Investors' paranoia isn't the problem here; the problem is really a lack of policy. There are many who think that the Balance of Payments crisis in 1991 could have been averted had there been a "proper" government in place during and after the Gulf War. (The same for the insurgency in Punjab.)

  74. Technology Allows For A Pure Democracy by Long-EZ · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The big news will be the pure democracy that technology now allows. We should all be able to vote securely online, on each individual issue. No more weasel politicians.

    Don't care about an issue? Don't vote. Care passionately? Vote! We'll have an electorate that is much more knowledgeable. We'll eliminate the graft and corruption that is inevitable when big money pays for a campaign to elect someone who is supposed to represent the electorate. Cut out the middle man and vote on the issues directly. And no more pork filled bills with hundreds of items snuck in there, allowing politicians to claim they voted for something very noble and patriotic, when they actually voted themselves a raise and everyone traded votes for their favorite pork barrel projects.

    --
    >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
    1. Re:Technology Allows For A Pure Democracy by runswithd6s · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think you're being a bit too optimistic here. You simply cannot get away from the problems of scalability of this model. How do you propose to keep the voting citizenship informed of every bill and how it might impact their lives if it beocmes law?

      How do you propose to maintain the art form that is used to write laws? Yes, I do mean art form. Laws need to be succinct, definitive, and without loopholes. Our full-time politicians and their lawyer-trained assistants have a difficult enough time with this.

      Representatives are elected as watchdogs for those of us who don't have enough time to participate ourselves. They are our eyes and ears.

      How do you propose from keeping big-money lobbiests form paying off the voting population? Don't you believe that voting activities and political activism wouldn't be monitored by special interest groups in any way they could manage. Even in a guaranteed anonymous vote, people will want to become involved in the political and democratic process. Wherever laws are written, you will find special interest groups and lobbiests.

      Structuring a democracy in the manner you depict, although idealistic, isn't very practical. Yes, many improvements to the democratic process can be realized through electronic voting and informative websites, but it isn't the magic pill you invision. Let's not forget that not everyone has access to or wants to use the Internet.

      --
      assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
    2. Re:Technology Allows For A Pure Democracy by Long-EZ · · Score: 1
      How do you propose to keep the voting citizenship informed of every bill and how it might impact their lives if it beocmes law?

      As I mentioned before, not everyone would vote on every issue. We'd vote on what matters to us. The people voting would be the ones who are informed. How many people today vote for elected officials randomly? They know something about the candidates for the major seats available, but 80% of the votes are based on how someone's name sounds.

      Representatives are elected as watchdogs for those of us who don't have enough time to participate ourselves. They are our eyes and ears.

      Now who's being an idealist? Politicians are commodities, purchased by corporations. By corporate accounting measures, they're cheap enough that most corporations buy BOTH candidates. Vote for whomever you want. It doesn't matter. The corporation still wins and the voters lose.

      How do you propose from keeping big-money lobbiests form paying off the voting population?

      Good question. It's a lot more difficult and expensive for a corporation to buy thousands of individual votes. It forces them out in the open, instead of making backroom deals behind closed doors. Democracy is inherently an open process, and it fails when corrupted by sleazy secret deals.

      Let's not forget that not everyone has access to or wants to use the Internet.

      I don't think it'll happen today. My hope is that we can start talking about it today, as a way of moving away from the corrupt two party system. In a hundred years, the issue of access to technology will not be an issue at all. The pure democracy will be viable. But not if we insist that the status quo is the only way it can work. I firmly believe that the people who established the system we have today used elected representatives because that was the best they could do with technology in the late 1700s. I think they'd want a more pure democracy, now that technology is making that a possibility.

      No, it won't be a perfect sysytem, but almost anything is better than the corruption we have today, where the system guarantees that all major political candidates are corrupt. Heck, I'm so desperate to eliminate corruption I'd be in favor of selecting representatives at random. I've been to the Department of Motor Vehicles, so I know just how bad a random selection could be. But at least we'd have a democratic process using a representative sampling of the population, instead of a system where only corrupt weasels get to vote on the issues.

      I'm sick of having to choose between two guys I know are both blow dried professional politicians, with a corporate agenda. Sadly, I've given up hope of having a candidate who wants to do what is right. I'm thinking about voting for Senator Palpatine. Comparatively speaking, he doesn't look too bad.

      --
      >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
    3. Re:Technology Allows For A Pure Democracy by cr0sh · · Score: 1
      Do you have any idea why our political system (the United States of America) is that of a representative republic, and not a true democracy? Have you not heard of "tyranny of the majority"? Do you not know what it means?

      There is a reason why the "founding fathers" of our country made the decision that our country would be governed in this manner - these men were NOT simpletons, but rather some of the most learned men of their age (and I daresay, they would be among some of the most learned men of OUR age). They studied the history of governments up to their time, examining things in very minute details, gradually forming what they thought (in their analysis) would be a workable government that could last for a very long time with internal peace (ie, not having civil wars/unrest every few decades or whatnot).

      Interestingly enough, their first attempt failed (utterly, and rather quickly) - so they had to go back to the drawing board. Their next attempt worked rather well - until it was honestly screwed by Lincoln during the Civil War - which radically changed what was a series of independent countries (States) governed under an "umbrella" government for certain needs - into one "country" (the "USA", as many people refer to it) - which has radically altered a lot of everything, and will likely lead to the downfall of our nation in the end.

      If you don't understand the subtle difference between "United States" and the "USA" - don't worry, the vast majority of the populace doesn't know, and doesn't care, it seems. People have forgotten what it means to have sovereignty (even personal sovereignty) - so you are not alone.

      I will tell you this - knowing all of this, knowing our *real* history, and knowing where we are likely headed (or, more likely, we are already there) - makes me feel frightened and unsure about our government and our future. All I can do is go about my business, help educate others where I can, and hope (and work) for the best...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    4. Re:Technology Allows For A Pure Democracy by cr0sh · · Score: 1

      To the AC who wanted to know the difference between the "United States of America" and the term "USA" - I point you an earlier comment of mine here - I hope this answers your questions, AC...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    5. Re:Technology Allows For A Pure Democracy by Long-EZ · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It seems we agree that the problem is a large and intrusive federal government, we simply disagree about the possible solution.

      I am familiar with "tyrrany of the majority". We have that now, when politicians care more about polls than they care about doing what's right. They almost always do what's politically expedient. Of course, they only care about polls when it isn't too much in conflict with the wishes of those who paid to have them elected. But it seems to me that the people who wrote the United States Constitution were a lot more concerned about the tyrrany of the minority, having seen it first hand in Europe, where the powerful few subjugated the majority. And that is exactly the sort of tyrrany we have today. It isn't tyrrany from the kings and The Church conspiring to maintain absolute power. Instead, we've substituted large corporations and powerful individuals, but it's still a matter of those in power weilding their power to stay in power.

      I'd rather have the tyrrany of the majority than the tyrrany of the minority. And I say that as someone who frequently finds himself in the minority when speaking out for personal freedoms, liberty, rights and opportunity.

      --
      >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
  75. Bad troll...no donut. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And for pete's sake...read some of the non-revisionist history books man....

  76. What's new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I see it, electronic voting is as common as it can be. Already e-voted 10 years ago. What's so novel about it? Perhaps the novel part is that the US are (far?) behind when it comes to e-voting.

  77. A quick query on google... by Orne · · Score: 1

    For the last national election, 2002 Voting Age Population Study using public data (derived from Census data, but not done by the US census dept)

    2000 US census is 281 million people, Voting-Elligible population estimate of 195 million, puts it at ~ 70%. From total votes, the turnout was 56% of VEP (in a highly contested election with highest turnout in recent years), so the vote represented 39% of the US population.

    Which is about right, when you think of it, records show only 40% of the US population supported independence from britain in 1776 (10% against and 50% neutral). But that's how it is in republics; freedom to vote also means freedom to withold your vote... would you rather be fined for not voting like you can in europe?

    1. Re:A quick query on google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YES, that would be much better. I was born in Brazil (live in Canada now though) and that's how things are down there. If you fine them, they will show up. You'd be surprised at how fast the fines climb over the years.

      Remember that you have to vote even if outside of the country or you'll be fined too. How hard is it to move your fat ass out of the couch for one day out of ~1600??

  78. they will get it right by jrf83317 · · Score: 1
    They got all the "highly skilled" people who are taking US jobs :-(

    Or they are outsourcing it to the Philippines ;-)

  79. 2 party and regulations - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If MS and IBM got together and decided to rule the software/hardware support industry together in a bipartisan manner. The government is going to cry foul - saying competition is healthy for the market and the consumer as it provides choices.

    Then how is a two party system a healthy competition with limited choices for the consumers. Two parties can conveniently rule without much disagreements by bartering policies. This system is not scalable -

  80. Re:No paper trail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To think that someone would demand auditable voting. Doesn't anyone blindly trust our government overlords anymore? The horror.

  81. Difference between Indian and American elections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be fair, it must be noted that there are some fundamental differences in the way Indian and American elections work:

    1. The Indian elections are usually for deciding 1 or 2 "events" - i.e. one choice for a local member of state senate (MLA) and one choice for a national member of parliament (MP). In the current election, 2 EMVs are used in each booth - one each to record the vote for MLA and MP.
    OTOH, American elections are more elaborate. There are a whole bunch of issues (referendums, initiatives etc) that are voted upon on the election date. The voter input is necessarily more complicated (such as a punched card) and there is greater probability of failure.

    2. Indian elections can be held any day, and if there is an issue with a certain booth, there can be a repoll with a period of time. American elections are held, across the country, on a certain pre determined date and there is no chance of a repoll (only of a recount). By design, Indian elections are more "robust" to something going wrong. This happens more often than you might imagine.

    3. Votes in an Indian election are counted offline - often several days after polling. This has been a deliberate decision - to prevent subsequent voters from being influenced by the current tally. In fact, even relaying of exit poll numbers is frowned upon. The American system requires (?) a networked system where tallys are updated at or near real time. Why I can't say.

    4. The Indian system doesn't allow write-ins, expat votes, votes from military officers on duty etc etc. If you can make it to the booth, you get to vote. Else, tough luck. The American system, with its write ins and other convenience features, is a lot more prone to failure. From an ideological perspective, the American system is a good idea but from a practical stand it makes things a lot more complicated. (I'm 30+ and I haven't voted in an Indian election because I have *never* physically been at "home" during any election - sucks but that's the price to pay)

    These are some reasons we can't really compare the effectiveness of EVMs used in India and in the USA. The system in India is simple, basic and by design reliable (I even doubt there is any software on it!) but it is very limited in what it can do.

  82. Vote for Blair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    but I don't think I could bring myself to vote for Blair, not after all the fun of last year.

    The last year gives even more reason to vote for Blair. He has stayed the course for what is good, rather than capitulate to the liars who oppose him.

    "why is the leader of a nominally socialist party tied into this destructive alliance..."

    If he truly was socialist, he would not deserve office.

    "this destructive alliance with the most frightening right-wing rabble seen in a Western democracy for half a century?"

    Oh. I see you are one of those liars who loves to attack Blair. Hopefully, the British public will be smart enough to see through the lies of you and your fellow morons. I suppose Bush is the most frightening western leader since FDR, who was also frightening because he stood up to evil instead of giving in to it.

    1. Re:Vote for Blair by flyingdisc · · Score: 1
      which is why you post as an anonymous coward to attack those liars is it?

      "why is the leader of a nominally socialist party tied into this destructive alliance..."
      If he truly was socialist, he would not deserve office.

      I'm always amused at how the cold warm polarised the world. I sat on a train yesterday and listerned to a couple of americans talking to their son. The father accused the son of being almost 'socialistic'. I gathered from the tone that this was ment to be an insult and the son quickly distanced himself from this position. I don't have any particular feelings for support of a socialist party, but having seen socialist parties come and go with out the world falling down, I find that knee jerk fear of the word quite odd.

    2. Re:Vote for Blair by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Hopefully, the British public will be smart enough to see through the lies of you and your fellow morons.

      I think you're mistaking me for Lord Hutton.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  83. Not criticizing, just pointing slight mistakes by hummassa · · Score: 1

    Party-appointed technical representatives can audit the whole system. false. The OS was not audited (nor the VirtuOS version 1 electronic ballot box nor the WindowsCE version 2). Other parts of the system were not audited, either.
    If there is some flaw in the diskette driver or in the flash memory driver, for example, it could be exploited; it does not seem practical to me, altough, because of the distributed responsabilities in our electoral process (I probably mentioned it before, here or in k5, but I can't find it now). The case is that a Judge is in charge of the machines for each 10k-100k voters (each machine is used in the range of 600-10000 votes).
    Many tests are conducted in the machines, by the electoral judges and party officials.
    Besides, for the electronic ballots in a machine to be considered valid (-- is this a valid English construct? --) the machine must be reset, and a special ballot report called the "zerésima" (zeroth) has to be taken from it just before the first vote is entered.
    India and Brazil have other things in common: illiteracy and poverty. Most of the users of the electronic ballots in Brazil cannot understand what they read on the screen. Electoral candidates in small towns "teach" people to vote on them, by making them memorize the key sequences. false. The photograph of the person you're voting shows up in the screen. The sequence of keys is numeric, and even with our high illiteracy rate, people normally can read numbers. Besides, voting is not mandatory to illiterate people and to people over 65 (as it is for the others [except teens in 16-18 range]), which are the people who have more difficulty with the machines.
    I just wonder if these countries couldn't be spending time, money, and minds on more relevant issues. The items above are of fact; this is one of my personal opinion: there is no issue more important than democracy. Here in Brasil, the machines make for a relatively safe (*) electoral process, and smooth to boot (last presidential election took less than 48 hours to count 100M+ votes).
    (*) I had the opinion that it was safer than the paper-based process -- that has a lot of security issues, too; thanks to Bruce Schneier, I am less certain now. in here, he shows how few percent of the votes should be swinged to reverse the result of an election. I am still curious how would this apply to our electoral system (**)
    (**) Here, for presidential elections, the elections are "direct", "majoritary", in "two rounds" (?! don't know if those are the correct English terms) Meaning: the candidates are voted; if one of them makes >50% of the valid votes, it's the next president; else, new elections 15 days from now with only the two most voted candidates (one of them will make >50% of the valid votes). For parlament elections, the system is of "parties lists", meaning you can vote for a candidate or for a party; the quota of the party in the house is separated and filled with the most voted candidates in that party.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    1. Re:Not criticizing, just pointing slight mistakes by rfz · · Score: 1

      You're right, the whole system can't be auditted, but I believe that the application code can.
      I did not mean that the electronic booths were problematic only for illiterates. You mention the elderly too, but that's not all. /.ers may not realize that you don't have to be deficient to be technologically impaired. Too many people are just not familiar with computers and can't understand what is expected from them when they interact with electronic devices. People should be introduced to computers, but I'm not sure that the elections are the best time.
      Also, I don't think that anyone has proved electronic ballots improve democracy. Brazil and India have enough democracy-related problems to keep busy for the next fifty years without having to worry about the fairness of electronic ballots. I do not mean that they shouldn't be used. My question is only of priority and order.

  84. 2005: George W. Bush, President of India by Radical+Rad · · Score: 1

    Just when you thought his political career was over...

    1. Re:2005: George W. Bush, President of India by dokutake · · Score: 1

      We're outsourcing the president?!?

      --
      - Peter
  85. Brazil has been doing it for almost 10 years! by dark-br · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And did US used that enormous experience to aid the implementation of a e-voting there? No...

    So what would make anywone think they would follow Indias foot steps?

    I dont think so.

    1. Re:Brazil has been doing it for almost 10 years! by hummassa · · Score: 1

      Bigger cities are doing it for *more* than 10 years. Here in Belo Horizonte (just around the corner from you) we are doing it since the mayoral election that preceded FHC's first election (8 years + 2 years + 1 1/2 = 11 1/2 years).
      I know, I was mesário.

      --
      It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  86. It kind of fits by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    World's most corrupt Democracy- meet world's most corrupt voting system. A match made in heaven.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  87. [Totally OT post about UK politics...] by rcs1000 · · Score: 1

    It's amazing - there is (and rightly so) a huge desire to say to Tony Blair "NO! Stop playing with Mr Bush and get back to running Britain. Which you did pretty well the last seven or eight years."

    And I don't see anyone turning back to the Tories (especially, I might add, with the loathsome Howard as leader). So I suspect the Lib Dems are going to do rather well in the May lcoal elections...

    --
    --- My dad's political betting
  88. Actual Solution by malahoo · · Score: 1

    I'm in Bangalore on a business trip. Funny you mention "biometrics"; my Indian supervisor demonstrated their actual system to me, referring to it as the same. But I took it as irony...

    What they do is take your right index finger, and mark around the fingernail with permanent marker -- so it gets real deep in the crease between skin and nail. Once you're marked, you can't vote again. Simple.

    Polls don't need no stinkin computers, not even in the current tech capital of the world.

    Circumvention of this scheme is not a huge issue in a place where election candidates routinely hold press conferences and hand the reporters envelopes filled with a watch and a Rs100 bill.

    --


    If you're not wasted, the day is.
  89. whats the point.. by nappingcracker · · Score: 1

    if individual votes are counted, but then farted out through the electorial college. the system was good, when it was difficult to tally the vote of all the individuals, but it has no place today.

    --
    |plastic....or gasoline?|
    1. Re:whats the point.. by runswithd6s · · Score: 1

      What I find wrong with the electoral college is that ALL electoral votes from a given state go to the winnner of the popular vote. If the electoral votes actually represented the distribution of popular vote, in the 2000 election for the state of Florida, 13 votes would have gone to Bush and 12 votes would have gone to Gore. I don't have the time to compare every state, but I imagine we would have had a much closer race (if that is possible), and possibly a different outcome. This is an exercise for the bored. It would be interesting if someone could point out a site that displays these results.

      --
      assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
    2. Re:whats the point.. by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      What you suggest is an option that is available to the state. But people are even less active in regards to their state governments than national!

      In fact, the most involvement you can expect from almost anybody, is they grudgingly vote in the national elections, usually just the ones that pick the president, and very, very few even do that.

      They sure as hell aren't persuading their state legislatures to focus state policies. They're not doing *anything* political.

      In the abstention of their duty of stewardship, they get the government they choose. The default choice. The "whatever, I don't give a shit" vote.

      Then they polarize either adamantly FOR or vehemently AGAINST the status quo. I'm convinced this is the system the people want. It's the ultimate expression of the will of the people.

      I'm expecting another "too close to call" election this time around. But then, I've gone on record many times with the view that things need to get FAR worse before people get interested in changing the system. I've also gone on record saying that "changing the system" is going to involve more than just a democratic process. I stop short of advocating violence, but I'm sure there will be plenty to go around.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  90. Bush and electronic voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Will the USA follow if all goes to plan?

    The USA is likely to follow if it works. Bush wants to make sure he wins Florida again.

  91. Just voted by rasteroid · · Score: 5, Informative

    I squeezed in just before the polls closed at 5:00 PM in Bangalore. I was a little rushed because all the security people kept telling me to hurry up so that they could go home. However the election in my constituency was very peaceful, unlike some other areas.

    Interestingly Indian media is not as vocal about the relatively small incidents of violence when compared to the international media.

    The electronic voting machines felt a little awkward. There was no feedback to tell me that I had actually voted for the right person, and no mechanism that I could tell to correct myself had I pressed the wrong button. In fact one of the instructions for voters that came out in the Times of India today mentioned that we should make sure the election commission employees monitoring the election didn't "accidentally" press one of our buttons for us.

    I would have liked the machine to somehow tell me (either through a display or by printing a little paper receipt) that I had voted for the right person.

    Also, one of the women election commission workers was looking down on my machine as I proceeded to push my button. I had to give her a really ugly look, "Do you mind?". She shrugged and went and sat down on her chair. There were representatives from all the political parties contesting for the seat from my constituency.

    What's probably not as common in the West is that there were about 10 people contesting from my constituency alone. One each from the major national parties (BJP/NDA, Congress), a couple from the major state parties and a few independents. I think the choice in the West is usually never more than 3 or 4.

    After voting each voter is marked with a small drop of ink between the nail and the skin on the forefinger of the left hand. Not sure what they do if you are handicapped.

    A state-wide holiday was declared to encourage people to vote. However in some areas it was just too hot in north of the state so the turnout was quite poor (40%-ish) whereas in my state on average I think it is around 60%. I'm sure there were many other factors that affected the voter turnout.

    The national parties are promising between 10-12% economic growth, which has probably never been achieved in India's post-independence history. Let's see how things pan out, although it appears the ruling BJP-led alliance will dominate. The question is by how much.

    All in all, it still felt good to cast a vote, although numerically the bigger the democracy the smaller the net value of each vote.

    1. Re:Just voted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are supposed to see a Red light for 5 seconds against the person you voted. Before you voted, you should have a green light that will let you know that you can vote.

  92. Answers In Advance by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Will it work?

    Oh, yes.

    The officials responsible for the decision to use electronic voting will herald its use as part of India's grand entry into the technology revolution.

    Companies providing the equipment will highlight its features, talking about security and speed with which results are available.

    Winners of the elections will be too elated to spend time dwelling on the nuts and bolts of the technology used to bring them to power.

    Losers of the elections will call into question any irregularities as well as the inherent problems with the electronic voting machines that motivated some of the world's best computer scientists to disapprove of electronic voting.

    More complaining will occur for closer elections. Media coverage of the complaining will vary depending on how close the elections are.

    In the end we'll all accept the inevitable results:

    • U.S. Republicans will win Mumbai
    • Indian's BJP will win Flordia

    [Damn! Applied the wrong firmware again!]

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:Answers In Advance by anothy · · Score: 1

      Hey, if it means we can "outsource" GWB.....

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
  93. Paper printout / Brasil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Brasil has deprecated the (3% of the total machines in the testing phase, AFAIR) paper-printout machines. The alleged reason is the extra expenditure without any aditional security.
    I disagree, but I can see the rationale: If you can enter a fake result in the vote accounting system, you can also produce a boxfull of fake paper ballots.
    Besides, the "will recount/ nah, will take too much time/ oops, where are the ballots?" fiasco in the US pretty much proved that in a big-nation-wide election, it's far more important to get it counted right in the first place.
    It's not like there is a better option in the ballot... just hopefully less horrendous ones ;-)

  94. take it from an Indian in India... by carlmenezes · · Score: 4, Informative

    Electronic voting systems are all very good. They are simple enough to use - push the button with your favorite party symbol - that people didn't seem to have a problem even though we have a lot of uneducated folk.
    However, where the electronic voting was nice, the human factor wasn't. You still have to fill out a ton of forms to get your name on the lists. You need to produce all kind of proof of ID, age and address. You need to go to the office several times to make sure your name gets on the voting list and after all that, sometimes, it just isn't.

    Why? because some politicians feel that if they wipe out an entire area that may be hostile to their party from the polling lists, it would be better for them. A lot of my neighbours came away really frustrated and dissappointed because their names were not there even though they had gone through the entire procedure.

    So basically, what I'm saying is, e-voting and all is very nice, but given a choice, I'd rather color a circle with a pencil if that's what it takes to be sure that my name will be on the list next time around.

    I mean, after all, why do we propose e-voting? To streamline the process right? From experience, I feel that the machines are a very small part of the process and that they should be considered onlt AFTER other issues have been ironed out.

    --
    Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
  95. not new by tanveer1979 · · Score: 1

    Many constituencies in India were already on EVMs and it was successful. This time all are on EVM. Thats the difference. And of course there is a huge advantage of results coming sooner

    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
    1. Re:not new by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd say that's a disadvantage; I, for one, love watching those psephologist gods spending sleepless nights live on television squirming in their seats just as their predictions are being proven wrong. ;-)

  96. Perhaps he's just naive enough. by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 1

    To believe that his vote counts.

    Of course, his democratic system may actually be set up so that his vote does really count.

    The British system on the other hand is set up so that a minority party like the New Labour party can take significantly less than half the votes (42%) yet still take power with a large enough majority in parliament (63%) that they can force through just about any legislation they feel like.

    So for the majority of voters in Britain, their vote really doesn't count.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  97. The Political Compas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The political compas is invalid: it is rather skewed. It starts to look more accurate if you move their Y axis one inch to the right. Right now, it measures the "center" as being in the middle of the left, instead of being between left and right. As a result, most of the left-wing parties are erroneously called "right wing". Try the test and ignore the results unless you do a lot of tweaking.

    1. Re:The Political Compas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe a simpler theory is that your political compass needs tweaking...

    2. Re:The Political Compas by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Right now, it measures the "center" as being in the middle of the left, instead of being between left and right. As a result, most of the left-wing parties are erroneously called "right wing".

      It's a British site, calibrated with respect to British politics. If you're an American, then that would explain your right-shift. Europe - even Britain - is a bit to the left of America in general.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:The Political Compas by Cally · · Score: 1
      You have to allow a certain amount of goofing around, you have to arrange company braais (BBQs for you American folks), go-karting, bowling, golf, horse-riding, etc.
      Ladies and gentlemen, a winner in this year's search for most astounding understatement ;)

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
  98. Uh oh by piznut · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hope Diebold rememberd to localize the voting software on those machines since Dubya seems to be having a hard enough time running this country.

  99. Cold Warm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "I'm always amused at how the cold warm polarised the world"

    It sounds rather icey-hot to me!

    "The father accused the son of being almost 'socialistic'. I gathered from the tone that this was ment to be an insult"

    It is an insult. Socialism is an inhuman and invalid philosophy of governing with a horrid track record: Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all socialists. It reverses centuries of human progress (where people have gained rights comparative to government) by giving government all the rights again.

    1. Re:Cold Warm by flyingdisc · · Score: 1
      It is an insult. Socialism is an inhuman and invalid philosophy of governing with a horrid track record: Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all socialists. It reverses centuries of human progress (where people have gained rights comparative to government) by giving government all the rights again.

      That sounds you are discribing communism. The UK labour party is, on paper at least, a socialist party. They have been in and out of power in the UK since the war, they are demoncratic and while slightly centralising have generally respected the civil and political rights in the same way the other party has. This is also true for the majority of europe and many other contries, where social democratic parties have participated in power.

      What I find amusing is that even 15 years after the cold war ended some people can't seperate the communist system of the 'evil enemy' from socialism. Face it mate, Tony Blair, who you seem to be a fan of, is the leader of the UK socialist party.

    2. Re:Cold Warm by Triskele · · Score: 1
      It is an insult. Socialism is an inhuman and invalid philosophy of governing with a horrid track record: Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all socialists. It reverses centuries of human progress (where people have gained rights comparative to government) by giving government all the rights again.

      I see. As opposed to fascism and capitalism on the right which is an inhuman and invalid philosophy of governing with a horrid track record - just look at the terrible abuses in countries all around the world in the last half century alone. It reverses centuries of human progress where people have gained rights from the rich and powerful by taking all those rights and giving them right back to the rich and powerful - or even worse the inhuman corporations. Government is often the best defense for the weak and the powerless against the self interests of the mighty.

      --

      --
      USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

    3. Re:Cold Warm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "I see. As opposed to fascism and capitalism on the right which is an inhuman and invalid philosophy of governing with a horrid track record"

      Socialism is a form of fascism. Remember also that Hitler was a socialist.

      "just look at the terrible abuses in countries all around the world in the last half century alone"

      Very minor compared to the abuses of the socialists.

      "It reverses centuries of human progress where people have gained rights from the rich and powerful by taking all those rights and giving them right back to the rich and powerful "

      That is exactly what socialism is! Except socialism puts forward the lie "the government is here to help you".

      "Government is often the best defense for the weak and the powerless against the self interests of the mighty."

      What a gullible fool: you have forgotten that government is the mighty. You are justifying fascism: increasing the power of the ruling class in order for protection.

  100. President John F. Curry by AtariAmarok · · Score: 3, Funny
    We're outsourcing the president?!?

    See subject.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  101. eFlorida Vote Rigger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like Brother Jeb is facing stiff competition on two fronts. The Diebold self service solution to outcome based election systems and the cheaper but equally reliable East India Election Company.

  102. Drawbacks of coalitions. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I would guess that the coalitions would allow for more fluidity in politics than 2 (or a few) strong parties.
    Yes, and that can be a distinct drawback. With an election that will determine the one party to rule them all, you know what you are voting for. With coalitions, you know what party you vote for, but if they end up in the government, you never know whom they will form a coalition with, and what principles they will compromise on.

    In the Netherlands, there are currently 5 sizable parties with a good likelyhood of being part of the government. They are Social-democrats, Christian center, Reactionists, Liberal and Conservative. I'll vote conservative, but they might (and have in the past) make a coalition with any of the other parties. If they team up with the liberals, they will compromise on government reform. If they team up with the Socialists, they will compromise on wage levelling and higher tax for rich gits. You get the idea... So, what exactly am I voting for?

    Aside from the uncertainty of the resulting policies, a coalition will always have to compromise on their differing principles and choose a middle ground, which can make for a very dull and rudderless government. At least a single party in power can take decisive action.
    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:Drawbacks of coalitions. by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      At least a single party in power can take decisive action.

      And you can see how well that's working for my country, the U.S. I'll take a 'rudderless' government over a nasty, fanatical one any day of the week.

      In fact, the less the government is capable of accomplishing, the happier I am. At the end of the day it's more likely that a) I won't end up with higher taxes, and b) I won't be subject to laws infringing my Constitutional rights.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  103. That's why Coke is red and Pepsi is blue. by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 2, Informative

    Then you have to be both colour blind and illiterate to make the wrong choice (Pepsi max BTW).

    Of course, as the second placed cola maker, Pepsi added a bit of red to it's logo to sow confusion among Coca-cola drinkers.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  104. You can't trust software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  105. Re:2005: APJ Kalam, President of US by ek-1000-ek · · Score: 1

    How about the other way? BTW, Indian president is a rocket scientist!

    --
    where did my sig go? where's my sig at?
  106. middling sized? by iwadasn · · Score: 1


    Let us not forget that the US is the third largest country in the world, both in terms of land mass and in terms of population.

    In population we're behind...

    1) China
    2) India.

    In land mass we're behind....

    1) Russia
    2) Canada

    Oh, and of course economically we're number 1 by a huge margin (though growing smaller under the republican leadership). Larger than at least numbers 2 and 3 combined, and probably a fair bit more besides.

    So let's not go all european and claim that the US is some middle sized western country.

    1. Re:middling sized? by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      if u read it carefully it says a state in a western country so it could be a really low number such as 400,000 (i think thats the pop. for maine)

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  107. now... by alchemistkevin · · Score: 1

    when do we get hired by USA for outsourcing their elections and politicians?

  108. Re:2005: APJ Kalam, President of US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BTW, Indian president is a rocket scientist!

    In A.D. 2005
    War was beginning.

    President Musharraf: What happen ?
    Pakistan Military: India set up us the bomb !
  109. You can't have democracy with socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Capitalist democracies are a game with marked cards. You just can't win"

    Assuming your false claim is correct, at least you have the cards. With socialism, this is not the case: the government controls everything, including the election process.

    "No matter who gets elected, money and the market will control him"

    Under socialism, the money and markets are controlled by, guess who, the ruling class.

    "THEY(TM) will keep partying..."

    Socialism is indeed popular among the weak-minded who fall as easy prey to nutty conspiracy theories. THEY are out to get you! Boo!!!!

    Only a moron gets a warm and fuzzy feeling from the phrase "We're from the government. We're here to help you."

  110. They can't comment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because all the Indian readers are in the US!

  111. EVMs for US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Will it work? Will the USA follow if all goes to plan? Here's the answer Silicon India

  112. Recounts in FL by cluckshot · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Recounts were not messed up by the Supreme Court of the USA. Sorry but to the Democrats out there in the USA who are bitter [I don't like Bush either] take a chill pill. The Florida Supreme Court messed up by trying to make law and the US Supreme Court called them down.

    To further educate (assuming it is possible) these people if Al Gore had not lost Arkansas or Tennessee the whole issue would not have come up. The actual decision was made in Tennessee which had a barf attack at their native son Al Gore. The reasons for this were obvious to those who traveled either of the two states (Ar or Tn). Frankly neither state got any benefits from having their people in High Office. As soon as Al and Bill left their respective states, they left them behind forever! Coming back and asking people you just stiffed to vote for you is not a good prospect for success. Cheated people tend to be a bit angry at who cheated them.

    Regards Electronic Voting and cheating, well those remain serious issues. The problem is that electronic voting doesn't necessarily "work properly" just because the election went off without any evidence of misdeeds. Frankly electronic balloting eliminates the evidence of misdeeds. This is like the banks who announced that tellers quit making errors when they went to computers. The reality was that the banks just eliminated evidence of the errors by computers.

    --
    Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
  113. One word: Kerala by ggvaidya · · Score: 1

    Kerala has had a democratically elected state government since 1957. First one in the world, actually :).

    1. Re:One word: Kerala by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which is why kerala is lagging behind in industry. pitifully.

  114. Democracy and Technology-savvy-ness (?!) by hummassa · · Score: 1

    As we have been using this tech for the last 12-14 years, you would think this is not really the case. People not-tech-savvy here think of the electronic ballot box as a phone. You dial the number, see the face, hit "Confirma" (ok).
    I was "mesário", an election official, in the three first elections to use the machines: the first one was for "city councilpeople + mayor + state congresspeople + governor + congreespeople + senator"; the second one, presidential, was in two rounds (meaning no candidate got more than 50% in the first round); and the third one, like the first.
    Imagine that. In the first electronic election, people had to "dial" 5 digits + ok + 3 digits + ok + 5 digits + ok + 2 digits + ok + 5 digits + ok + 2 digits + ok + ok (all ok?).
    In our electoral section, in those three election (five or six rounds, for the mayor/governor elections are in two rounds, too), we had only one case (a 90-yo lady) who could not vote; as she was optional, anyway, she gave up. And this happened only in the first time around; in the other elections, she showed up (impossible to miss and the sections are always the same), voted ok, went away. The Electoral Courts nowadays make available in the poorer regions fac-simile voting machines, so people can train themselves (oriented by an electoral official, who is forbidden to give any real candidates names or numbers) in the use of the box.
    I don't know about India, but at the present day and age, Brasil has more economic-related problems and political-ethics-related problems than democracy-related problems, IMHO. Our bad experiences during the autocratic regime (1969-1984) made us implement a very deep rooted democratic system and way of thinking; it's not foolproof yet (is any? I don't consider the outcome of the last USofA elections as a prime model of democracy), but it's not a real problem anymore. We do have a real solid democracy, and I hope we learn how to use it properly.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  115. Proporitonal Representation by Dewin+Cymraeg · · Score: 1
    It's time for the change!

    E-voting makes it easy!

    All we need is someone with enough guts to do it! Maybe if we get a hung parliament next election and there's a lib/lab pact.

  116. EVMs Flip side by venkats · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I voted this morning. As an aside, I need to mention that this is actully the SECOND time my constituency used the EVMs. the last time was around 1999.
    anyway, one thing i noticed about the EVMs while voting was that there is no way for me to know that the vote got registered against the candidate I actually voted for. of course, these machines have been tested fairly well enough [manufacturers Bharat Electronics Ltd (www.bel-india.com)]. But I need to know for sure too.

    The other issue has to do with the number of candidates that can be accomodated on the EVM (perhaps 20 or so). The last general elections in 1999 in India threw up a logistical problem. One particular constituency had, well, 400 candidates. The Election Commission had to revert to paper. Why there were 400 candidates is besides the point(not relevant here).

    1. Re:EVMs Flip side by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1
      The last general elections in 1999 in India threw up a logistical problem. One particular constituency had, well, 400 candidates.
      Nalgonda, (Andhra Pradesh), 1996. 437 candidates, if I remember correctly. The constituents were protesting the fact that waters from River Krishna were still not released to the region. They had to make special ballot boxes and papers for that one; the ballot papers were the size of a regular-size tabloid and the ballot boxes were made of wood, if I'm not wrong (as opposed to the regulation green-painted metal boxes).

      I should know; I belong to the area. :-) (not registered under Nalgonda, but still close enough)

  117. He probably thinks it is kewl to say "U" by vishwass · · Score: 0

    EOM

  118. Brasil by hummassa · · Score: 1

    And, to boot, we have an area bigger than the continental USofA.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  119. Re:Cheaper labor = better labor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then why isnt he/she pro-outsourcing?

  120. Re:The general optonion of India around here.... by mikeee · · Score: 0, Troll

    India has a lower population density than Palo Alto; what's your point?

  121. Dangers of uniform election system(s) by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The primary reason not to trust the fate of a democracy to a centralized voting system (electronic or not) is that any such system can be taken over. The stakes are much higher with a single system -- a party successfully taking it over wins all. So scumbags will be trying much harder to find flaws in it, than designers and implementors securing, or reviewers checking it.

    The danger still holds partially true, BTW, even with a decentralized, but uniform election system -- the same flaw (software, hardware, or administrative) once found can be exploited everywhere.

    For example, there are strong indications of elections rigging in the past in different states of the Union (by crooks from both major parties). But those only affected that particular state with nation-wide effects muffled.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  122. It benefits you in the long run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "this can often bite you in the ass in the long run, which is where I see this outsourcing thing ultimately ending up"

    Outsourcing, where it involves paying a lot less for the same work, will benefit the company in the long run. No company will do that well if it decides to waste money.

  123. Some corrections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "There really is no liberal political party in the U.S. any more"

    You are forgetting the Democrats. Measured from the center, they are liberal/left wing.

    You also failed to mention that the Democratic candidates campaign center and govern "left" (like the GOP guys campaigning center and governing "right").

    "they have pushed both the media and the Democratic party to center right which is a win/win for the hard right"

    The US media is still mostly left wing (especially TV). This has not changed. The Democrats are as left-wing as ever.

    "The Democratic party no longer has any appeal to real liberals so they either vote for Nader or the Greens and waste their vote"

    There is nothing true at all about that. The liberals strongly support the Democrats. The Nader/Green supporters are a tiny group of a few percentage points. If it were true that the liberals have abandoned the Democrats for Nader/Green, it would mean that there were only 1% liberals in the country now. This is not true: the country is pretty much evenly divided conservative vs liberal.

    "and they are bought and paid for by big corporations"

    Stop referring to far-left conspiracy theories as if they were fact: this only exposes your own bias and drives home the fact that you appear to be on the far left, and anyone else who is not in your extreme wing must be a right-winger.

    "kind of odd since 2/3 of U.S. corporations don't pay any taxes and overall they carry a much smaller tax burden than the middle class does now"

    This is not true. Almost all corporations pay a rather high tax.

    "his [Bush's] first policy initiative after winning the nomination being tax cuts for business."

    How is this bad considering that the vast majority of business receiving these cuts are small business? Or are you so far left that even the small business is evil and must be overtaxed and/or wiped out? Chances are, you have never run or been involved in small business.

    " If the Democrats do win they are legislating at the center right."

    President Clinton legislated "left". Tom Daschle and Pelosi try to get Congress to legislate left. President Kerry will legislate left. But what do I know? All I do is judge politics objectively, from the center.

    1. Re:Some corrections by demachina · · Score: 1

      "You are forgetting the Democrats. Measured from the center, they are liberal/left wing."

      I guess you missed the whole point of the post. The point being the center has moved so dramatically to the right in the last 25 years, and especially the last three years, that what is now passing for a centrist Democrat is what used to be a moderate Republican, the liberal democrats are painted as fringe loonies and have been completely locked out of the political process, and the center of the Republican party is moving to what used to be called the fringe right, not necessarily bad if it was to true conservatism but as I said its not, it much more closely resembles Fascism. Yes the Democrats are pro abortion and pro labor so if you want to define that is liberal go ahead.

      "The US media is still mostly left wing (especially TV). This has not changed."

      Thank you for playing the game and proving the point. The right wing keeps saying that in spite of the fact the media is dramatically further to the right than it was twenty years ago. Fox News alone has created a far right media that simply didn't exist twenty years ago. Talk radio is completely dominated by the far right. The so called liberal media has been compelled to move to the right to avoid being painted as the loony left. EVERY network jumped on the Iraq banwagon and was showing the exciting pictures of the tanks charging through Iraq. No network was asking the most rudimentary questions that should have been asked to challenge the deeply flawed and largely fabricated case for war in Iraq. They simply dare not because they would have been branded leftist and unpatriotic by the right wing and Fox. The end result questions that should have been asked weren't and we are in a ugly mess of a war that could easily cost a trillion dollars before its done and will most probably result in thousands of dead Americans and tens of thousands maimed for life.

      "This is not true. Almost all corporations pay a rather high tax."

      This is simply not true. They are in a rather high tax bracket but the tax code is swiss cheese for large corporations with skilled accountants. They fabricate losses, keep profits off shore, use complicated shelters, exploit tax loopholes that were put in the tax code to benefit large corporations. Its a simple fact that by the time it comes to send a check to Uncle Sam 2/3 of corporations especially the large multinationals DON'T pay their share of the tax burden.

      The IRS doesn't even attempt to audit most large corporations, preferring to focus on middle america working people because they are an easy target. Auditing the complex books of large corporations is largely infeasible without massive new resources at the IRS. Just look at how long its taken to unravel Enron's books with a massive epxenditure of resources.

      ""and they are bought and paid for by big corporations"

      Stop referring to far-left conspiracy theories as if they"

      I'm sorry but all evidence suggests you are either naive or being intentionally dishonest. You have to look no further than last years so called Medicare reform bill. The drug and insurance companies flat out bought and paid for that legislation. Bill Tauzin who led it through Congress is taking a multimillion dollar job with the drug lobby as a reward for his efforts. The head of Medicare was, with the Bush Adminstration's approval, negotiating for a lucrative career with the very people he was rewarding with that legislation. He should have been fighting for the well being of Medicare, seniors and tax payers, but he was in fact concealing the true cost of the bill and how little it really offers seniors so he's future employers would get a bonanza at tax payers expense.

      --
      @de_machina
  124. Voter Verifiable Trail by cr0sh · · Score: 1
    would have liked the machine to somehow tell me (either through a display or by printing a little paper receipt) that I had voted for the right person.

    This is something that is being fought for here in the USA - a voter verifiable paper trail.

    Slowly, people are "waking up" to the problem, but it is unclear whether enough will be done or recognized by the November elections (our presidential election time this year).

    A voter-verifiable paper-trail is tantamount to running any form of democratic process (whether it is representative based, like here, or otherwise) - there needs to be a way for the voter to know that the machine recorded who they voted for correctly. That way, if there is a question of who won the election, a hand recount of ballots may be made.

    With electronic machines (especially ones in which there is no publically auditable source code), though - all is up in the air. Only if a receipt is printed and given to the voter is there a way to really be sure (and this way is open to vote buying fraud, so it really shouldn't be implemented!). How are you to know that the screen and paper match what is really in memory (and/or on disk)? In a close election, unless there is major contestation done afterward, a cheating "winner" could skate by unless the population DEMANDED a recount of the printed record. Even then, who's to say the printer couldn't be controlled to print random "fake" votes not tallied in memory - in case of a recount (hopefully voter rolls would catch this - if open-source code was used, this code could be looked for as well - unless the compiler sticks it in, of course).

    My biggest fear is that most voters (and even most votees!) will never understand these issues (and I haven't outlined them all - there have already been recorded "failures" of electronic voting machines, and our "mainstream" media has passed on most of these stories - so the voting constituency has NO CLUE), and the "elections" will continue to go on - and nothing (or everything, to our greatest detriment!!!) will change...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  125. Enlighten me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "If you don't understand the subtle difference between "United States" and the "USA" - don't worry, the vast majority of the populace doesn't know"

    I thought I knew this stuff, but I always thought that US/United States was just a shorter version of USA/United States of America.

    Lay it on us. What is the subtle difference, any more than there is a difference between "NC" and "North Carolina"; or "USSR" vs "Soviet Union"?

    1. Re:Enlighten me by cr0sh · · Score: 1

      AC, I made a reply to this thread, for your answer...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  126. Re:India outsourcing alone! by cr0sh · · Score: 1
    I believe you and your countrymen are hardworking - this is not the problem with offshoring. The main problem with offshoring is that the market (that is, the potential employees) in America is unable to compete mainly because of cost of living.

    You see, what we call "poor people" here in the US, with very few exceptions, would likely (comparatively) be considered at least "middle-class" in India (I could very well be very wrong here, I have never traveled to your country, and I appologize for any sweeping generalizations I may make or have made). The "poor" here have TV(s), cable, computer(s), food, clothing, shelter, cars - basically all the necessities of life and then some!

    I have recently been researching solar energy usage for cooking - a lot of sites describe places in India which use various solar furnaces and ovens for cooking (and I have to say, many of these devices are VERY ingenious, especially in figuring out how to make and build parabolas for furnaces - but I digress), since fuel for cooking in rural areas tends to be scarce or otherwise difficult to come by.

    The images I have seen of these people (and I don't know when some were taken, but some were from fairly recent times), while obviously very hard working, show that they are obviously impoverished.

    That gives a baseline on what constitutes "poor" there - we haven't had a baseline of that level of "poor" since perhaps the Great Depression or further back, when people here were mainly subsistence farmers.

    We cannot compete at all on the wage front - what your people are willing to work for, say in a yearly salary - many times doesn't even equal what is considered "poverty level" wages here in the USA (say $15-20,000 USD/year). This is considered "poverty" here (!!!).

    The question isn't whether that is a lot of money - it is what can be bought with that amount, and the fact that if most people are earning a lot less, they can't buy as much, so employers here can't pay them as much - lowest common denominator, etc sets in...

    I guess what I am trying to get at is that in order to compete for those jobs being outsourced, potential employees here would have to be willing to take the jobs at much, much less than what they were working for them - while knowing that they can't afford healthcare, shelter, food, clothing, etc - because those items don't drop in cost (heck, I have never seen prices on so called "durable goods" ever go down in my lifetime, yet) as fast as the wages would have to.

    I think that is what has people the most upset about offshoring to India (or any other country) - the fact that in those countries, the standard of living is so low comparitively, there is absolutely no way to compete, and there isn't another skill or market they can transfer their skills to in order to continue to work (and it costs so much in money and time to learn something else - for anything else that might make money - I for example would love to learn something to go into biotech, like bioinformatics or something - but all of that could and is being easily offshored right now, so what else? - even if I could afford to get a real degree). This is causing a classic FUD reaction.

    I know that sooner or later it will all settle out - some of us will stay, continue to have jobs, some of us will move on, and some of us will go under in one way or another. I don't harbor ill will toward someone in the world trying to get a leg up on their situation, so to speak - I applaud the effort and results. Personally, myself, I see this whole offshoring thing (along with all the other multitude upon multitude of fiascos and such) as part of larger issues, something which sometime, likely in 5-10 years, will cause the USA to implode, possibly sparking civil war and/or revolution - the outcome of either is likely to be a very, very bad thing.

    That is, unless all of these problems are actually the result of peak oil issues - in which case the entire world is likely hosed as the last reservoirs are fought over. Sooner or later it is going to go nuclear over energy resources, if peak oil isn't a myth (and I don't think it is - even the oil companies know about peak oil, why do you think they are diversifying into alternate energy research, and changing names to move away from "oil" to "energy"?)...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  127. How Stuff works here. by vivekr · · Score: 1

    India has a lot of illetrate people.(they have y no idear howto even spell their names and use the thumb print as their signature). Hmmmz how will he chose Mr Indian No1 or Mrs Italy Or Mr Goon ? Well we have symbols associated with parties/candidates(btw there are a lot of people who do stand in the elections as independant cadidates some of them do win .... ) Eg : The BJP has a red lotus as its symbol ... Ok one Problem out of the way. Next thing is how do ya make sure the same person does not vote again. There has been a gradual evolution to prevent false votes. 1)They have issued Voter Id cards to most of the electorage 2)There is some indeliblie Ink Put on the Fingers of the voters a part of it on the flesh above the finger nails and a part of it below... (hehe incase u thought u could just use a knife to scrape it off ur nails) The goons did get around and find a solvent for the indelible ink .... Thats the story behind getting the elections done fair and square ... Now The EVM's ..... How do we ensure it works ? hmmz consider the EVMs.... 10 buttons 10 symbols/ names U like Mrs Italy U chose her symbol (hehe ) or if u like the red lotus chose the same :) Press the button and keep going home .... Now that aside how do we take care of the security aspect ? Ok here are a few possible senarios that could happen.... Button1 Should Belong to Mrs Italy.... Button2 should Belong to Blue Lotus ... Button3 should Belog to the gunda near the Bus stand .... Hmmz the smart government official tags No1 as Blue Lotus No2 as Mrs Italy.... Hmmz beep beep there are agents form all the candiates in the condituency to check the evms... Do they have the symbols at the right place etc etc... 2) The voting booth is captured by goons and they start puching on the button of their fav gunda near the busstand ... Beep Beep India sets aside a lot of police personal for each of the booths. We have staggered polling so 3 days for the whole country. ParaMilitary personel .... That aside the EVMS can register only a set amount of votes every minute... So cant puch away darlings .... wont work .... 3) Hack the system ...... Hmmz not likely unless u are the person who gets into the high security valult like they do in the movie Mission Impossible part Duex ? These Evms after the election are sealed and placed in boxes before the agents of the candidates and sealed in steel boxes ... and set for safekeeping gaured by a lot of Men In Kakis ...... These Evms are never online ... never connected to any other device untill counting.... (They are more like ur gameboys not ATMS ...) What if the Ballot Boxes get hijaked ? Simple if its true repolling!!!! lol so if the goons do get hold of stuff there is another local holiday coming along lol :) Haha and forget the goons are are far too few of them for a country as big as India. We dont worry about them goons in 99% of the booths ... They restrict their activity usually to booths which are sometimes 10kms away from proper roads and stuff... so its understandable .... I hope the write up helps clear all your nagging questions... Do i Think it works ? and am i Happy about it ? 120% I am happy with the way EVMS work ... Yep and u do get a beep after u have cast ur vote to help ya know u pressed a button and a light does go on for a second near ur candiates name (I am not too sure about the light its been 5 years since i cast my vote ... Time to go check again and refresh my memory about the no nonsense approach to voting .... ) Chao

  128. schyp! now we're outsourcing DEMOCRACY ?!? by swschrad · · Score: 1

    we're all doomed.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  129. I just don't agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "To the AC who wanted to know the difference between the "United States of America" and the term "USA""

    I don't agree, as USA is nothing other than an abbreviation of "United States of America". It is a 3-syllable shortening of a clunky 9-syllable name that, as an abbreviation, does not lose any of the meaning. When "USA" was painted on the side of Saturn 5 rockets, it was to save space, not because it meant something different from "United States of America".

    As such, it includes all the stuff you mentioned about States and sovereignty: the S stands for States after all. It is like trying to find a difference between "USB" and "Universal Serial Bus" or between "CIA" and "Central Intelligence Agency".

  130. Even more corrections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "The point being the center has moved so dramatically to the right in the last 25 years"

    It hasn't moved when you look at it from the center. The "right wing" Republicans have actually embraced the idea of increasing welfare programs and increasing government control of health care. They want to increase this just a little less than the Democrats, but both are moving to the left on this and related issues.

    "Its a simple fact that by the time it comes to send a check to Uncle Sam 2/3 of corporations especially the large multinationals DON'T pay their share of the tax burden."

    Yet they pay a huge share. I guess it is not enough.

    "Thank you for playing the game and proving the point. The right wing keeps saying that in spite of the fact the media is dramatically further to the right than it was twenty years ago"

    I don't care if the right-wing or left-wing says it. I care if it is true. "the media" is too mixed to say if it is left or right wing. TV news is clearly left-wing. AM radio is clearly right-wing. Print media is mixed.

    "Fox News alone has created a far right media that simply didn't exist twenty years ago"

    You are flat-out lying on this one. Fox News is centrist, not far-right. Also, Fox News is one centrist news channel out of 4+ left-wing ones.

    "Talk radio is completely dominated by the far right"

    You are lying, yet again. You are forgetting FM talk radio, which is dominated by the far-left.

    "The so called liberal media has been compelled to move to the right to avoid being painted as the loony left"

    The actual liberal/left media has stayed left-wing, with the possible exception of MSNBC which barely knows what it is anymore (but who watches it anyway).

    "No network was asking the most rudimentary questions that should have been asked to challenge the deeply flawed and largely fabricated case for war in Iraq."

    You are expecting the networks to work from your false premise now! There was no flaw and no fabrication. Being left-wing is one thing, acting from a flat-out false premise is another. Yet, proving that you have no idea what you are talking about, the far-left questions and problems and pro-Saddam arguments were aired before the war, and are being aired during the war.

    "The end result questions that should have been asked weren't and we are in a ugly mess of a war that could easily cost a trillion dollars"

    You are lying again. "The questions" from the lunatic left were asked and discussed all over. Thankfully, the answers were known, and your side (Saddam's side) lost.

    "I'm sorry but all evidence suggests you are either naive or being intentionally dishonest. "

    No, just well informed and skeptical of false but simplistic theories. I reject something if there is no evidence.

    "The drug and insurance companies flat out bought and paid for that legislation"

    That is the angry far-left position. The Democratic party position paper, in fact. The reality is that it was a mixed bag.

    It is clear that you are just sore that the left-wing media is not far left enough, and you would not have been happy with Dan Rather unless he had gone and literally licked Saddam's boots.

    1. Re:Even more corrections by demachina · · Score: 1

      "You are flat-out lying on this one. Fox News is centrist, not far-right. Also, Fox News is one centrist news channel out of 4+ left-wing ones."

      No, you are just proving that you are on the far right. The instant someone says Fox is centrist they have shown their colors. Rupert Murdoch is very right wing, he wont deny it nor will anyone else who is being honest, and so is his network. No one without a massive right wing bias would call Fox News "centrist". Their "Fair and Balanced" slogan is another right wing con to make it sound like what they are saying is in the center when it simply isn't. You just keep proving my point whether you like it or not. If Fox is your idea of the center the center in this country has shifted dramatically from where it was twenty years ago. In the run up to the war on Iraq they were a blatant mouthpiece for the Pentagon. They were running stories that the U.S. was in imminent danger of being sprayed with chemical and biological weapons from Saddam's RPV's to whip up that last bit of pro war frenzy. It was just insane and it just wasn't true. Fox was notworthy for having fired a reporter because she refused to read news that she and her editors knew to be a lie. She sued them and lost. The judge determined that Fox wasn't required to tell the truth.

      I also really can't believe you would try to stand up for that Medicare bills. Seniors are overwhelming rejecting it, and for the most part don't even understand it. It throws out a stupid little discount card now to bait them in to being put in to HMO's where they can be denied care on a routine basis in the name of Medicare cost cutting and insurance company profits. Drug and insurance company lobbyists were circling like sharks smelling blood, just out of range of CSPAN's cameras, throughout the debate and its pretty well documented there were massive payoffs occurring in exchance for votes. If there hadn't been it never would have passed. It was a new low for American Democracy. Its not a great statement about you or what your believe in that you pretend nothing wrong happened there.

      "Dan Rather".

      Well to be honest I can't stand to watch him. Since 9/11 he has, out of necessity, turned in to something of a pro war flag waver, or at least he sure was when backing the war in Iraq was the thing to do. If he's your idea of the "liberal" media today you have once again proven my point.

      Instead of dragging this on any more lets just admit it. You are a right winger, you aren't going to change, they seldom do, no point in arguing with you. I'm not sure I'm on the far left. I always decide my position on what I think is right and not what cubbyhole I'm supposed to be in. I hate the Republicans and I don't like the Democrats. Every other party in the U.S. is doomed by a system stacked in favor of the two in power.

      The only thing I'm sure of lately is I am deadly afraid of everything the Bush Administration, its backers and its minions, are doing. I would care a little less if they were inflicting their scary agenda on just the U.S. but they unfortunately sit atop the world's largest military intelligence establishment and have developed a propensity for using it, unilaterally, wherever they feel like it. They are, beyond a shadow of a doubt the most dangerous entity in the world today and everyone outside the U.S. knows it. I can't stand Kerry and I'm very confident he doesn't stand a snow ball's chance in hell of winning in November, so when Bush is reelected, I'm acting on the "love it or leave it" motto the right wing likes so much and I'm emigrating. I hope I can find a little out of the way country like Costa Rica that is insignificant enough that the Bush administration will leave it alone. I just simply never want to hear another word of his empty bullshit rhetoric or watch him lie the U.S. in to another war or anything else. Granted Clinton lied about sex. Bush lies about stuff that gets people killed and is costing the U.S. trillions of dollars.

      --
      @de_machina
    2. Re:Even more corrections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "No, you are just proving that you are on the far right. The instant someone says Fox is centrist they have shown their colors"

      No, it means that they have actually watched it, and seen its actual presentation of thoughtful leftists (even representatives of "The Nation" and "FAIR").

      "Rupert Murdoch is very right wing, he wont deny it nor will anyone else who is being honest, and so is his network"

      It is true to say he is right-wing. It is a lie to say that any of his networks are right wing. Let's look, for example at the Fox Network. Did you know that he gave Michael Moore his own prime time show, and even kept it going for a couple of years despite very low ratings. Anyone who ran right-wing stations would not dare do that.

      "Their "Fair and Balanced" slogan is another right wing con to make it sound like what they are saying is in the center when it simply isn't"

      It is a centrist slogan, not a right-wing one.

      "If Fox is your idea of the center the center in this country has shifted dramatically from where it was twenty years ago"

      It actually is the center, and the center has not shifted. I have proven none of your points: only disproven many of them.

      "In the run up to the war on Iraq they were a blatant mouthpiece for the Pentagon."

      They presented mouthpieces of the Pentagon, yes (as any news station would). They also presented opponents. So what.

      "Fox was notworthy for having fired a reporter because she refused to read news that she and her editors knew to be a lie."

      Real world translation: they fired someone who wanted to lie.

      "I also really can't believe you would try to stand up for that Medicare bills"

      I oppose it as it is too much of a giveaway myself.

      "You are a right winger, you aren't going to change, they seldom do, no point in arguing with you"

      I admit it. Unlike you, I measure the center from the actual center, not from my own point of view. Fox News, being at the center, is to the right of me. CNN, being on the left, is to the left of me. Hannity and Rush, being right-wing, pretty close to me (but a little to the right of my own views, actually).

      "Every other party in the U.S. is doomed by a system stacked in favor of the two in power."

      I think this should change. Did you know that the federal government gives massive subsidies to these two parties? The smaller parties do not get them? Rather than give money also to the smaller parties, I think the feds should zero out money given to the parties. Let them pay for their own caucuses, primaries, and conventions.

      "They are, beyond a shadow of a doubt the most dangerous entity in the world today and everyone outside the U.S. knows it"

      They are only dangerous to the terrorists, and only those that are terrorists or love them have any reason to fear. Honestly. There is nothing that Bush, his left-wing friend Blair, and the coalition have done that can be taken as negative in any way.

      "I'm acting on the "love it or leave it" motto the right wing likes so much and I'm emigrating."

      Good riddance. If you hate the country and its people so much, then scram. Hope you like living in a country more to your suiting like North Korea. or even France. Hope to see you in one of their antisemitic marches.

      "I hope I can find a little out of the way country like Costa Rica that is insignificant enough that the Bush administration will leave it alone"

      Or how about the 95% percent of the rest of the countries that are not nightmare terrorist dictatorships, and thus won't earn Bush's wrath.

      "another word of his empty bullshit rhetoric or watch him lie the U.S. in to another war or anything else"

      "Bush lies about stuff that gets people killed and is costing the U.S. trillions of dollars."

      He hasn't done this yet. He told the country that, in light of 9-11, he was going to hold Saddam accountable for his ongoing terrorism and threats. He did. Truth told, promise kept.

      "Granted Clinton lied about sex."

      Actually, he lied about his crime of sexual harassment (which he eventually admitted he did). He lied about a lot of other things, too. Did you know he took the US into war against another country that never even gave word to threat against the US, and was opposed by the UN? I guess it was OK: it was Clinton.

    3. Re:Even more corrections by demachina · · Score: 1

      Here we go again and I should have stopped an hour ago using my handle to argue with a chicken shit right wing anonymous coward..

      All I can say is that if you think Fox is the center I cringe at what a right leaning news channel would look like in your world.

      "They presented mouthpieces of the Pentagon, yes (as any news station would). They also presented opponents. So what."

      Well sorry but every network was wall to wall with retired generals and colonels which is odd if they are all as liberal as you claim they are. The opponents of the war were few and far between before, during and after, until it became apparent the Iraq war was a bad idea, and the Bush Administration suckered the media and the media with a bunch of bold face lies. The Iraqi's didn't shower us with roses when we arrived, they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction worth mentioning, and no one has ever established a link to Al Quaeda. Fact is Saddam wasn't a good Muslim, he was only one when it was politically convenient, and its pretty unlikely Islamic extremists would have anything to do with him. I know you right wingers refused to admit you were misled but you were.

      "Real world translation: they fired someone who wanted to lie."

      No. only in your special little world. Fox's editors ordered her to read something she knew was a lie and they knew was a lie and she was fired for refusing to. Fox simply has a pretty low standard for truthfullness for good propaganda. Like I said this case went to court and she lost because they judge determined it was Fox's prerogative to knowingly lie on their network.

      "I guess it was OK: it was Clinton."

      Nope, Kosovo was about as wrong as Iraq was. The Albanians were in fact trying to provoke a NATO intervention, they did and they got NATO to do their dirty work for them. You seem to be branding me as a Democrat lover which is what right wingers think everyone else is. Like I said I have no use for Democrats either and this is just another example of how similar they are to Republicans these days in launching preemptive wars in places which are none of our business. To Clinton's credit his war didn't cost hundreds of billions of dollars and a whole lot fewer Americans died. Clinton also didn't campaign against nation building, Bush did, and now he appears to be doing it all over the place at great expense to the U.S.

      The only point I meant to make about Clinton was he was pilloried by the right throughout his 8 years in office, to the point he could barely function, and they never did make anything substantive stick. The Bush administration has been through a string of truly impeachable offenses and like teflon they've all slid right off without a peep, of course it helps that the Congress is controlled by his own party so he can pretty much get away with murder.

      "Or how about the 95% percent of the rest of the countries that are not nightmare terrorist dictatorships, and thus won't earn Bush's wrath."

      You seem to be a little naive about your beloved countries history which is kind of standard for the flag waving right wingers. I hate to point this out to you but the United States has installed more "nightmare ... dictatorships" than any other country you can name:

      http://www.isp.nwu.edu/~fprefect/politics/timeli ne .html

      I guess maybe the operative word is terrorist but that word seems to be applied to anyone who is in the "against us" category from "you are either with us or you're against us". This is one of George Bush's most chilling lines and one that shows his totalitarian leanings more than just about any other.

      I guess I could go to Venezuela, they have a democratically elected Socialist government. Oh wait the Bush administration has been trying to topple their government pretty much since Bush was sworn in so I guess your contention that he only goes after "terrorist dictatorships" doesn't really hold. I could go to Columbia, no wa

      --
      @de_machina
    4. Re:Even more corrections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Well sorry but every network was wall to wall with retired generals and colonels which is odd if they are all as liberal as you claim they are"

      You seem to have a stereotype that of the man is military, or generals are shown, it is anti-liberal.

      "The Iraqi's didn't shower us with roses when we arrived, they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction worth mentioning"

      Some did. There was welcome, and even now Iraqis overall are grateful. As for the WMD's, they existed before Saddam forced the US invasion. There is no question that they existed. The question is "where did he move them to?"

      "I hate to point this out to you but the United States has installed more "nightmare ... dictatorships" than any other country you can name"

      You should have not pointed this out, because historically you are totally wrong. A kook's WEB LOG does not prove your case. Since WW2, the US has a very strong record of opposing imperialism and overthrowing dictatorships and supporting nationalists.

      "Nope, Kosovo was about as wrong as Iraq was. The Albanians were in fact trying to provoke a NATO intervention, they did and they got NATO to do their dirty work for them."

      It didn't happen. There was no US or Nato intervention in Albania. As for Kosovo and Bosnia, Clinton was 100% on the side of good in this one (stopping Serbia's aggression against Kosovo, Bosnia, and Croatia). Clinton even illegally armed Croatia which enabled it to win back the 1/3 of the country stolen by Serb invaders.

      "You just seem to regurgitate what you hear on Fox."

      I've never heard this on Fox. I'm conservative, they are not. However, since Fox has a reputation for being factual, they are probably good to repeat, even though they are not a conservative network.

      "majority of the people in Spain hate Bush and hated their government for backing him and his misguided little war."

      Since the war was not misguided, you are lying in that sentence. Yes, the Spanish people gave in to the terrorists and voted for a much more oppressive government.

      "and its pretty unlikely Islamic extremists would have anything to do with [Saddam]"

      You are forgetting the fact that Saddam was funneling large sums of money to antisemitic terrorists inside Israel. This included very Islamic groups. He sided with the Islamists if it furthered his goal of grand Arab imperialism and extermination of the Jews.

      "you are either with us or you're against us". This is one of George Bush's most chilling lines and one that shows his totalitarian leanings more than just about any other."

      There was nothing chilling or totalitarian about this. He was just telling it as it is. It was just another version of "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.". Of course those who sided with Saddam in US votes and those who marched in the streets to defend terrorists were for terrorism, and thus against us. It is good to have an honest man in the white house for once.

      "The Bush administration has been through a string of truly impeachable offenses and like teflon they've all slid right off without a peep"

      ...because there is no evidence of any. Yes, he's teflon. All the martian attacks, like the impeachable offenses, have slid off him. Next...

      "All I can say is that if you think Fox is the center I cringe at what a right leaning news channel would look like in your world"

      In the real world, liberal stations are liberal (CNN), centrist ones are centrist (Fox), and right-wing ones are right-wing (oops. no right-wing news network. Let's move down to AM radio and grab Limbaugh. Don't grab him too hard or you will shake the pills loose).

      "I guess I could go to Venezuela, they have a democratically elected Socialist government"

      Please do. Don't lie about Venezuela: it is a fascist dictatorship, and Chavez is trying to model it after Castro's Cuba. You can stay there for a couple of years until the US helps the Venezuelans overthrow the dictator once and for all. You'd be at home there. Too bad you can't go to Saddam's Iraq (since you are strongly in the pro-Saddam camp).

    5. Re:Even more corrections by demachina · · Score: 1

      " Since WW2, the US has a very strong record of opposing imperialism and overthrowing dictatorships and supporting nationalists."

      Keep telling yourself that. The American propaganda which says America is a never ending champion of freedom and democracy and can do no wrong must have worked on you. That weblog is a little to long and has some marginal examples, but it is good because it is comprehensive and lists so many places where America really has trampled democracy around the world despite its empty rhetoric to the country which you seem to believe.

      For effect he could have just focused on Iran, Guatemala, Argentina and Chile. All are places where the U.S. toppled democratically elected, nationalist governments and replaced them with ruthless dictators SINCE WORLD WAR II. The fact we installed the Shah in Iran is why the Iranians stormed our Embassy and hate us with a passion to this day. He was about as bad as they come for ruthless dictators. You are just so typical of an average American in that seem to have no clue when it comes to politics or history.

      "It didn't happen. There was no US or Nato intervention in Albania. As for Kosovo and Bosnia, Clinton was 100% on the side of good in this one (stopping Serbia's aggression against Kosovo, Bosnia, and Croatia). Clinton even illegally armed Croatia which enabled it to win back the 1/3 of the country stolen by Serb invaders."

      The people in Kosovo NATO was saving from Serbia were ethnic Albanians you retard. Kosovo is next to Albania. A reference on the guerilla army that was provoking Serbian retaliation that led to the NATO intervention. The Kosavars weren't quite the innocent victims NATO propaganda made them out to be to justify the intervention. Toppling the last communist states in Europe was the real goal:

      http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/kla.htm

      I doubt you will read it. You seem to prefer sticking to your preconceived world view rather than facing the facts that contradict that view.

      "Since the war was not misguided, you are lying in that sentence."

      You are hopeless. I give up. You are a classic example of why American's are despised around the world. You are self centered, arrogant, convinced America is always right when it isn't and most probably ignorant of history, politics, cultures other than your own and foreign affairs. You need to travel and read more, something other than just the bible. Here is a little gem to leave you with from Google News today:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,11 97 136,00.html

      The gist of it is America has never been more hated in the Arab world than it is today, thanks to Iraq and Bush puckering up and kissing Sharon's ass last week. This is coming from our supposedly close and moderate allies in the region the heads of Egypt and Jordan.

      If Bush continues down his current path and is reelected the U.S. wont have a friend left in the world in two years other than:

      - countries with right wing wackos like Bush
      - countries the U.S. has paid to be friends

      If Spain is any indication Bush's few remaining friends in places like Britain, Australia and Italy will get voted out the next time they face elections because the people in the rest of the world hate Bush and they are hating American's more everyday thanks to Bush.

      I personally would prefer America were liked and respected around the world, which it was after 9/11 before Bush and his cronies trashed all that goodwill with their extremist unilateral agenda.

      --
      @de_machina
  131. PR is not needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    PR is not needed. It does not make anything more democratic. All it does is move the debate, coalition-building, and organising process from happening "before the election" to happening "after the election" in Parliament.

    Do you want the views of the parties that are equivalent to the "Polish Beer-Drinking Party" to be worked out and taken into consideration before, or do you want them to actually have seats in Parliament? Either way, democracy happens: the fringe fellows get voted out in the ballot box or they get ignored during votes in the Houses of Parliament.

    Having PR would not solve any messes, and we would have to put up with the fringe fellows getting voted down in Parliament instead of being voted down at the ballot box. If you want the "Manchester United Stout-Drinkers Political Party" wasting time making speeches on the floor, by all means push for PR.

    1. Re:PR is not needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you want the "Manchester United Stout-Drinkers Political Party" wasting time making speeches on the floor, by all means push for PR.

      Oh, please, stop with the FUD. We've had PR in Australia in the upper house for many years. The world hasn't collapse and indeed, there's evidence that many citizens (on both sides of politics) deliberately vote for different parties (in the lower and upper houses) in order to maintain a balance of power.

      At the same time, PR is simply more democratic. It allows parties which would otherwise gain 10+% of the vote to be represented in Parliament. The alternative is to disenfranchise minority viewpoints in society.

  132. From INDIA: EVMs make rigging easier by manishs0 · · Score: 1

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/628 782.cms Quite interesting! much like all science, which can be used both ways...

  133. It's fair by anilmq · · Score: 1

    Well, you don't need to be literate to vote through electonic voting machine. How hard is this: Find the logo of your party and press the button. THe ruling party, BJP, has lotus as their logo and the congress (the corrupted party that rules india for decades) has a palm (yes basically wrist and above). Find the logo and press the button. Seems pretty straight forward to me. Don't need to be Gauss or Einstein or ramanujan. It's not corrupton-proff. With indian economy skyrocketing, corruption seems to be down. I doubt much fradulent votes.

  134. No need to go to Europe. by hummassa · · Score: 1

    Here in Brasil, if you don't show up for voting, and don't justify your absence to an Electoral Judge, paying a fine, you can't get a public job, and your citizenship is severely restricted until you regularize your situation.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  135. Look at my other posts here... by hummassa · · Score: 1

    I don't mind if they use paper or not, I would just like they get GWB out of comission, which I hope they'll do this year.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  136. Skilled politicians by hummassa · · Score: 1

    You get what you pay for...

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  137. I can see the voting form now.... by Quantuminium · · Score: 0

    [ ] Indian National Party
    [ ] National Party Of India
    [ ] Indian Democratic Party
    [ ] Cowboy Neal

  138. US will be the last country to evote? by sad_ · · Score: 1

    what an achievement, electronic voting. I remember voting only once, the first time, using a pencil and paper! the last two times have been electronic for me (i live in belgium,). Some very small villages are still manual but even they will be switched over next time.
    Brazil also already had electornic voting and now India, does the US want to be last at this or something? I don't see what is so difficult about it.
    We all had a good laugh out of the US presidency elections last time.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  139. In Brasil, things are at the same time... by hummassa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    simpler and more complicated. See, to get a job -- any regularized job... -- you have to be a registered and showing voter. You have to show your Voter ID (called "Título de Eleitor") and a ticket showing you voted in the last election. If you don't have such ticket, you can't vote in the next election, too. But, most important, you can't get a job in government. In the next year, you won't be eligible to receive any $$$ from the government, including tax returns. If you don't show up to vote, you have to go to your Electoral Court and justify why you were absent (can be done by snail-mail, too, but even so you can be called to testify on Court) and pay a small fine.
    So, every mandatory voter (literate 18-65yo people) has its Voter ID regularized.
    You get in the section, show your voter id to the "mesário", sign a sheet, vote, get your "showed up" ticket, and go away.
    Here, there is no transit vote (you can only vote in your section), and the Voter ID is nationwide (the database is central). It's fairly difficult to vote twice (but not impossible).

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  140. Outsourcing? by serutan · · Score: 1

    Now that India is fully equipped for e-voting, maybe the US could outsource all our elections. Just add a line on the 1040: Do you want to outsource your vote to India? Yes/No

    Software analysis of your tax return would determine your economic status and probable political stance, and cast your vote automatically. The evolution of American democracy would be complete:

    1. Revolution
    2. Participation
    3. Spectator sport
    4. Honey, The Simpsons are on!

  141. middling-size western country? by demonbug · · Score: 1
    Forget the problems of e-voting in a state in some middling sized western country


    You do realize that the U.S. is the 3rd largest nation in terms of population (and land area)? Hardly middling size.

    1. Re:middling-size western country? by Cackmobile · · Score: 1

      yes but compared to those other two the US is middling. 250 mill as compared to 1 bill+

      --
      -- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
  142. The value of rigging an e-voted election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As brought up in a previous Slashdot topic:
    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/1 8/174225 3

    Copied from Bruce Schneier's Cryptogram (this essay written by Paul Kocher):
    http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0404 .html

    Stealing an Election

    There are major efforts by computer security professionals to convince government officials that paper audit trails are essential in any computerized voting machine. They have conducted actual examination of software, engaged in letter writing campaigns, testified before government bodies, and collectively, have maintained visibility and public awareness of the issue.

    The track record of the computerized voting machines used to date has been abysmal; stories of errors are legion. Here's another way to look at the issue: what are the economics of trying to steal an election?

    Let's look at the 2002 election results for the 435 seats in the House of Representatives. In order to gain control of the House, the Democrats would have needed to win 23 more seats. According to actual voting data (pulled off the ABC News website), the Democrats could have won these 23 seats by swinging 163,953 votes from Republican to Democrat, out of the total 65,812,545 cast for both parties. (The total number of votes cast is actually a bit higher; this analysis only uses data for the winning and second-place candidates.)

    This means that the Democrats could have gained the majority in the House by switching less than 1/4 of one percent of the total votes -- less than one in 250 votes.

    Of course, this analysis is done in hindsight. In practice, more cheating would be required to be reasonably certain of winning. Even so, the Democrats could have won the house by shifting well below 0.5% of the total votes cast across the election.

    Let's try another analysis: What is it worth to compromise a voting machine? In contested House races in 2002, candidates typically spent $3M to $4M, although the highest was over $8M. The outcomes of the 20 closest races would have changed by swinging an average of 2,593 votes each. Assuming (conservatively) a candidate would pay $1M to switch 5,000 votes, votes are worth $200 each. The actual value is probably closer to $500, but I figured conservatively here to reflect the additional risk of breaking the law.

    If a voting machine collects 250 votes (about 125 for each candidate), rigging the machine to swing all of its votes would be worth $25,000. That's going to be detected, so is unlikely to happen. Swinging 10% of the votes on any given machine would be worth $2500.

    This suggests that it is necessary to assume that attacks against individual voting machines are a serious risk.

    Computerized voting machines have software, which means we need to figure out what it's worth to compromise a voting machine software design or code, and not just individual machines. Any voting machine type deployed in 25% of precincts would register enough votes that malicious software could swing the balance of power without creating terribly obvious statistical abnormalities.

    In 2002, all the Congressional candidates together raised over $500M. As a result, one can conservatively conclude that affecting the balance of power in the House of Representatives is worth at least $100M to the party who would otherwise be losing. So when designing the security behind the software, one must assume an attacker with a $100M budget.

    Conclusion: The risks to electronic voting machine software are even greater than first appears.

    This essay was written with Paul Kocher.

    When you look at it like that the conspiracy theories become a little more plausible - with the sums of money mentioned lots of doors begin to open and the true black hats come out to play...

    BTW can someone tell us how to pronounce Bruce's surname properly? I keep leaning towards the German "Schnee" (snow) but I'm pretty sure it's wrong.

    (posted as an AC so as not to whore the karma for an essay I didn't write)

  143. I did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "AC, I made a reply to this thread, for your answer..."

    I read your linked response. However, I don't think it made a convincing case of the meaning of "abbreviation for A" meaning something other than "A".

  144. I've had my doubts ... by willtsmith · · Score: 1

    ... about the quality of India's democracy. Now it's official.

    With universal e-voting, India no longer has a democracy. Those who control the machines (the counting) will always win.

    We can officially scratch India off the list as the worlds most populous democracy. They are just like China now.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  145. I just voted with electronic machines today. by zerofoo · · Score: 1

    It wasn't a major election....just school board members and three school budget questions.

    Still it was nice to push a few buttons instead of flipping levers in a 1950's era machine. Maybe we are finally slowly experiencing the modernization of some of our oldest institutions.

    Next, we ditch the electoral college.

    One can hope.

    -ted

  146. "Europe" ? by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    If you read the article you'll see that voting is mandatory in only Belgium, Greece and Luxembourg, which is less than 5% of Europe.

    My perhaps biggests pet peeve with Americans is their tendency to assume Europe is one homogenous place. In reality it is 50 very different countries, and there is hardly anything you can say about it that is not completely wrong about some of those countries.

    1. Re:"Europe" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silence, Limey!

  147. Re:Gore lost the election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gore lost all counts of votes. The one the Supreme Court denied him? He would have lost that one was well if had been held.

    Nice fiction. Not what the Herald Commission analysis of the ballots[google cache] showed:

    [The election] would have gone to Al Gore -- by a slim 23,000 votes -- rather than George W. Bush, the officially certified victor by the wispy margin of 537.

  148. Did I miss the obvious joke. by LinuxTard · · Score: 1

    Bush will win the next election with 100% of the voting.

  149. Why Bush will win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ....and Bush will win because the alternative, Kerry is the worst possible candidate: the flip-flopping of Gerhardt (along with Gephardt's contempt for workers), the cold-hearted and mean-spirited rage and attacks of Howard Dean...all in a stiff robotic package that even makes Al Gore look almost lifelike in comparison.

    Then he goes and promises to rob us by increasing our taxes (killing economic growth in the process) and he has also promised to greatly increase the defecit by wasting even more money than Shrub is wasting.

    America won't want ketchup with that.

  150. Another word: Tripura. by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1
    People keep forgetting that there's a third Communist strongehold in the nation. :-)

    Then again, most of the Deccan heartland in Telangana was always Communist (whether parliamentarially, ie, CPI/M, or militarily, ie, Naxals)

  151. The Downside of Fluidity by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1
    I would guess that the coalitions would allow for more fluidity in politics than 2 (or a few) strong parties.
    Yes, I suppose you could say there's more political intrigue out here than the US (or SA).

    Sorry if I sound rather cynical, but the fact is, while there is a fair amount of coverage of ethnicities, and dare I say, religions, there just isn't enough political coverage of all viewpoints. I consider myself to be mostly left-of-center on economic issues, and right-of-center on political issues, and as such, I find my political ideas woefully under-represented.

    Unlike most other Indians though, I don't quite think the problem is politicians per se; there are many politicians who, IMHO, adequately could represent me in the Indian Parliament. Unfortunately, they are rather thinly spread across all parties. Which puts Indian polity in a rather unique situation; you would often find both good and bad performers in the same party and, as recent events have shown, even in the same government. The system, as it exists, just doesn't give me, an individual voter, enough power to punish the laggards and reward the performers; voting for a party, it seems, is not equivalent to voting for an economic or social policy.

    I must mention a trivia bit here that is interesting in terms of evolutionary biology; I don't know if these elections would reflect this trend, but Indian voters, as a whole, seemed to have developed their own punishing system for the last 5 or so elections. You see, except for one single state government (I guess you could raise that number to four now), no incumbent government has ever been voted in again on election. It's almost as if a billion people have decided en masse that the best way to save the nation is, to use a cricketing metaphor, to rotate the strike every five years. Now, if you assume all politicians are worthless and that they need to be punished, then I suppose it's a fantastic system; but that, obviously, isn't how things work in real life. India needs fresh ideas, critical thinking and leadership to take it forward into the 21st century; India needs to cut short the rot that's growing within it.

    Unfortunately, as big and impressive the election mechanism might be, I don't see it promoting the kind of leadership it really needs. And therein lies the rub.

  152. OT: Your email ID/ Surname. by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

    Just curious, but is your surname "Pillaallamarri" by any chance? If I'm not wrong, you share the name of your surname with that of a rather famous banyan tree ("Pillala marri maanu", one of the world's largest, I'm told) somewhere in the Deccan countryside. :-)

  153. Re:India outsourcing alone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Don't get me wrong, my friend, but I think you tend to over-think on certain issues. :-)

    Have a nice cuppa and try yoga in the evening; guaranteed results, I'll tell you.

  154. Thankfully, Spain is not a trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "If Spain is any indication Bush's few remaining friends in places like Britain, Australia and Italy will get voted out"

    Thankfully, this is not a trend. El Salvador voters recently, and resoundingly, rejected the socialists and voted to "stay the course" with their government, which is helping Iraq as part of the coalition. The socialists in Greece were defeated. The strongly anti-Iraq socialists in France also received a major election setback during this same period. Spain's big step backwards goes against the current trend.

    " before Bush and his cronies trashed all that goodwill with their extremist unilateral agenda."

    You are lying again. There is nothing extremist, and certainly nothing unilateral about a large coalition of 50+ nations.

    "You are self centered, arrogant, convinced America is always right when it isn't"

    America is wrong plenty of times. You have yet to name any, instead attacking America for doing the right thing. (such as in your antisemitic rant on Israel). I'm not arrogant in the least. Self-centered? A self-centered nation would not spend all that money to help Iraq, or to help Kosovo. (you even attack Clinton for doing one of the best things he did in his presidency).

    "You need to travel and read more, something other than just the bible"

    Been there, done that. Unlike you, I take the time to learn the facts of the situations. Why the "bible" reference? I'm detecting more religious bigotry on your part (on top of the antisemitism).

  155. ...and it gives aid to US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    India gives aid to US. Maybe they can donate some EVMs too...

  156. Re:India outsourcing alone! by cr0sh · · Score: 1
    Though I doubt you will read this, AC, whoever you are - you aren't the first person who has said this too me, nor will you be the last.

    Perhaps you're right - but only time will tell in the end...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon