Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Who's Blocking Verified E-Voting?

Posted by michael on from the sabot-in-the-gears dept.

ClarkEvans writes "The NY Times has a great editorial today calling out the League of Women Voters for their counter-productive lobbying against verified voting. The article states that Diebold voting systems has given lots of dough to these opposition groups." There's an AP story about the issue as well.

8 of 447 comments (clear)

  1. Women voters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Since women have gained suffrage in the US, we've seen:

    - Prohibition
    - The Great Depression
    - Nuclear weapons
    - The Cuban Missile Crisis
    - The assassination of JFK
    - The Vietnam War

    It's time to stop the madness! Repeal womens' suffrage now!

  2. reminds me... by flynt · · Score: 5, Funny

    This reminds me of a group I heard about who set up a booth and handed out stickers encouring and "end to women's suffrage". Apparently plenty of females were in support of this, not knowing what the word meant.

    1. Re:reminds me... by Throtex · · Score: 5, Funny

      They did this on The Man Show. Sounds a lot more formal when you just call it "a group" though. :)

  3. What needs to happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    is for some white-hat slashdot reader to go and actually steal an election as proof of concept and then publicize it. Sure he'll probably go to prison for the rest of his life, but he'll become a legend among techies...

    take one for the team!

  4. Well... by TWX · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... if the League of Women Voters is friggin' stupid enough to support a cause that breaks elections, they're working quite well to make people regret granting women suffrage in the first place...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  5. Re:womEn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The League took a vote to make the change you suggested. Unfortunately, they used a Diebold voting machine, and the results were:

    153% Nay
    -12% Yea

  6. Re:Jeez. by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 4, Funny
    Yeah, I agree. This is ugly. I just wrote the following angry message in the feedback box on their contacts form. I hope they write back.
    I thought I was someone who would automatically support your causes you champion until I read the NYTimes editorial about your inexplicable support for paperless Diebold voting machines, and your willingness to take bribes for the disenfranchisement of women.

    Surely you are aware that you are in the pocket of a sleazy company which is itself in the pocket of the Bush administration, and both will do their best to see to it that women die rather than receive an abortion or govenment support in raising children.

    To lobby for a fundamentally corrupt and opaque voting system puts you at odds with those who spent their lives fighting to give women political representation. You are voluntarily laying it down.

    If you have abandoned your fight for the fairness of our democracy, there is no need for your organization to continue. And if the soulless corpse of your PAC attaches like a leech to the belly of Diebold, you owe it to women to change your name to something which better describes your current motivations, something with the word "WHORES".

  7. Re:What?? by flossie · · Score: 3, Funny
    Great! Now how do you suggest a dead person verify his vote(s)?

    Use GhostScript to process the printed ballot?

    --
    flossie

    Write now. Defend liberty