No Secret Ballot for Military Personnel?

belmolis writes "According to this editorial in today's New York Times, US military personnel for whom regular absentee ballot procedures are inconvenient are being provided with a questionable alternative, the Electronic Transmission Service, run by a private contractor, Omega Technologies. According to the NYT, the secrecy of ballots could be breached when they are faxed or emailed from the field, when they are in the hands of Omega Technologies, or when they are in the hands of local officials. The NYT was unable to obtain any information on security procedures from the company or from the Pentagon. A manual describing the system can be downloaded here [pdf document]. Like Diebold, Omega is far from non-partisan. Omega President and CEO Patricia Williams has donated $6,600 in this election cycle to the National Republican Congressional Committee and is a member of its Business Advisory Council."

Comments

Gain control over the military first

[losttoy]

First, identify who votes for Bush and who votes against him. Then eliminate the people against and put more people who are pro. Now you have control of the armed forces. Everything else falls in line after that easily.

Re:Gain control over the military first

[Bricklets]

Fox Mulder, is that you?

Re:Gain control over the military first

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm betting they're not to happy about the fact the Bush Administration has cut their pay, used the same National Guard that they hid in during the Vietnam War as a backdoor draft, and is distorting Kerry's record in this whole "flak jackets" argument (do you have any idea how many military systems George W. Bush voted against - oh, wait a minute, that's right, he never held legislative office, so he can't be criticized for all the bullshit bills with some good contents he voted against over the years).

Re:Gain control over the military first

[Barbarian]

There's got to be some democrats in the general officer corp., you could get rid of them if their votes were not secret.

Re:Gain control over the military first

[Pros_n_Cons]

well of course there is going to be democrats voting but to suggest the big bad evil Republicans are going to dis enfranchise a section they are going to win by a landslide anyway just doesn't add up.

Re:Gain control over the military first

[Anonymous Coward]

Kerry never voted against flack jackets

Re:Gain control over the military first

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether the democrats like it or not the majority of military is behind their Command-In-Chief and will in all likelyhood vote for him again. I can also tell you first hand, that if your knowledge of the events in Afghanistan and Iraq is from the news media then you are basically ignorant of reality. The vast majority of the Iraqs' and Afghanistans' citizens are very glad the US stepped in and helped. The US Men and Woman that are over there are doing good work and they know it even if most of the clueless dolts in the US don't. Someday the true events will be revealed and you guy's will be amazed at how totally clueless you were.

Re:Gain control over the military first

[Anonymous Coward]

The people who oppose him don't generally join the Volunteer Force, though there are some exceptions.
Kerry is the subject of scorn in the USAF, in which I've served for 23+ years.
We don't need to weed out Democrats, because the only Dems who enlst are forced to do so by economic circumstance and are so uneducated or indifferent as to be politically ineffective. The rest of you despise the military, which is fine by me. You can't change what you refuse to participate in.
In other news, the sun rose in the East.

Re:Gain control over the military first

[Long-EZ]

...to suggest the big bad evil Republicans are going to dis enfranchise a section they are going to win by a landslide anyway just doesn't add up.

Linear regression calls the election for Kerry.

Actually, the data is too unstable to suggest that linear regression could adequately predict Kerry will win. As we keep hearing, it's too close to call. But anyone believing there is an impending Bush landslide has been watching too many Fair & Balanced (TM) infomercials masquerading as Fox News.

Politically, Kerry is a strong finisher, but it's really all going to hang on the fickle mood of the American voter on 2NOV04. There will be an October Surprise (probably several) that will skew it one way or another. I do think Kerry/Edwards will have a major advantage over Bush/Cheney in the debates. Kerry and Edwards are both articulate, and the last four years have provided a lot of substantial issues to discuss. They'll do a lot better in a fact based debate instead of the emotionally charged name calling we've seen the last few months.

Most voters are already confirmed one way or another. It's the small group of undecided voters in a few undecided states that are going to decide this.

Either that, or the US Supreme Court.
:^(

Re:Gain control over the military first

[Mistlefoot]

If the vast majority WILL vote Republican it is even MORE imperative the minority be protected. Which is what the article is about. A person who is a member of any minority often feels pressure to conform. As the grandparent implied - the pressure is strong to vote Republican if your vote is public and the majority around you - the people you require to be your friends if you want to survive are angry at your political beliefs.

Isn't this the very reason votes are private?

Re:Gain control over the military first

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Oh, bullshit. I enlisted in the USAF for two terms (1989-1997, including Desert Storm) and I'm a Democrat. A lot of the people I served with were too. Yeah, a lot of us may have been poor; that doesn't mean we're stupid.

Happens at the other end of the scale, too: Merrill McPeak is endorsing Kerry, as are a number of other retired flag officers. Don't project your biases onto everyone else.

Re:Gain control over the military first

[Mr. Slippery]

Whether the democrats like it or not the majority of military is behind their Command-In-Chief and will in all likelyhood vote for him again.

Actually I've discussed the question with a few military people, and none planned to vote for Bush. Indeed, one Army officer pointed out to me that, given the "backdoor draft" going on, members of the Guard and Reserves "would be idiots" (his words) to vote for Bush. (Of course, I live in a pretty solid "blue" state.)

I can also tell you first hand, that if your knowledge of the events in Afghanistan and Iraq is from the news media then you are basically ignorant of reality. The vast majority of the Iraqs' and Afghanistans' citizens are very glad the US stepped in and helped...Someday the true events will be revealed and you guy's will be amazed at how totally clueless you were.

Right, I'm going to take the word of an Anonymous Coward on this. As if all the bombing and shooting was actually just an old Iraqi way of greating visitors.

Re:Gain control over the military first

[AKnightCowboy]

Yup. and this is why all of their happy, greatful citizens are blowing up the oil pipelines.

You can't have it both ways. Either all muslims are evil and should be nuked, or the acts are being committed by a group of criminals and the majority of the people are innocents. I tend to believe the latter which is why I would never support the fanatics on our side who hate muslims simply because of the actions of a few nutcases on the other side. Do you honestly think the newly freed "normal" citizens are out there blowing up pipelines? They're more concerned with getting their lives back in order and securing themselves a stake in this new democracy without letting the theocrats take control.

Re:Gain control over the military first

[Master of Transhuman]

The only clueless dolt here is you if you believe the crap that Iraqis like the US.

Only a complete and utter moron could even conceive of believing that.

Or a propagandist spouting bullshit, of course.

Re:Gain control over the military first

[Master of Transhuman]

Nobody ever said all Arabs hate the US - except the rightwing Christian military guy that got in hot water for declaring the Muslims were agents of Satan. Oh, and most of the rightwing so-called pundits and the neocons. You don't remember, "They hate us for our freedom?"

What they hate is George Bush and his policies.

As for the Demos wanting us all terrified, that is undoubtedly true - they're politicians after all.

However, it is DOUBLY TRUE for the Republicans who started this shit.

It was a REPUBLICAN administration who ALLOWED (and possibly orchestrated) the 9/11 attack on this country and then squandered ALL of the goodwill from the rest of the world that followed it.

Kerry may be no better than Bush, but I doubt he could be worse. I could be wrong about that last, however.

Re:Gain control over the military first

[GQuon]

What they hate is George Bush and his policies.
And unless Kerry's policies are withdrawing from the world and letting them having their civil wars unmolested by the US, then they will hate Kerry too.
Voting for Kerry won't make attacks on the US less likely. Saying that sounds like saying that the terrorists want Kerry to win. That's an unviable campaign strategy.
The terrorists would like to change the election result to show their influence, but they don't really care much in which direction. Their main goal would be to either get your troops to withdraw, or to provoke disproportionate retaliation from the U.S. against innocents.
In those two paragraphs it sounded like I equated all Arabs with terrorists. That's wrong. But the anger and resentment among parts of the population helps recruit terrorists and give them support from their surroundings.

The shit is all yours, by the way. Ha!

Don't despair. You can make this world a better place. If you think it's going in the wrong direction, you can help change it for the better. Neither the two-party system nor popular apathy are unchangable. But start with the man in the mirror and get a clue. Seriously.

Re:Gain control over the military first

[GQuon]

David Koresh, is that you?

Re:Gain control over the military first

[Voltageaav]

I'm currently oversaes Active duty Airforce. I voted for Bush last time and I plan to vote for him again. Personally, I don't know of any people in my squadron who plan on voting for Kerry. Also, I think the issue of military service in this campeign is bull. It has nothing to do with how good of a president the person will make. As for the voting process, Most people I know are using the absentee ballot. Actually, I hadn't even heard of this service untill I read this article.

Re:Gain control over the military first

[Master of Transhuman]

I don't support Kerry, who is a mirror image of Bush on the Democrat side, so your argument is irrelevant.

The real issue is: the terrorists are CORRECT. The policies of the US are themselves examples of "state terrorism", and the terrorists are correct in fighting back.

Their only error is to target US civilians rather than the statists in the government and their corporate supporters.

But then, most terrorists have emotional reasons for being terrorists and this tends to cloud judgement. As a result, most terrorism is ineffective and inefficient.

I know - I was one.

If 9/11 had been done competently, the only targets would have been the White House, the Senate, the FBI, NSA and CIA headquarters, and the Pentagon. (Fort Knox and the New York Federal Reserve Bank would have been nice, too.)

But since 9/11 was probably suggested by Mossad infiltrators into Al-Qaeda and assisted by them and allowed to occur by the neocons who wanted a "terrorist Pearl Harbor" (their own phrase) to occur, it's not surprising how it actually went down. Meaning nobody but civilians got hurt, and the politicians got the go-ahead to expand their power and line their pockets.

Kerry would have done the same thing, as I indicated in my original post. He didn't hesitate to kill innocent Vietnamese while he was in Vietnam and he would be killing innocent Iraqi civilians today if he was in charge.

But that doesn't excuse Bush who IS doing these things.

K5 article on this

[Anonymous Coward]

here

Compromised ballots?

[davejenkins]

Ballots *could* be compromised at all sorts of places along the chain. The NYT article seems to be making political hay out of the fact that there happen to be some additional points along that chain for overseas military ballots.

Ballots could be compromised by the electioneers at your local library/fire station/place of baloting-- that was never the real check. The check on ballot tampering has always been:
- statistical anomalies to spot possible tampering
- ballot counting to verify/disprove tampering.

This may seem simpleton, but it's how things have been done for the length of the republic. I don't see how adding some more stages (with the same checks at each stage) would fundamentally alter that-- unless you're a newspaper trying to raise the spectre of a rigged election 2 months before voting starts...

Re:Compromised ballots?

[kinrowan]

Sure there are checks on the compromising of ballots, but isn't the real risk the chilling effect of other people knowing which way you voted?

Especially in the military it seems to me that anonymity is critical to the practice of democracy.

Re:Compromised ballots?

[gl4ss]

*Ballots could be compromised by the electioneers at your local library/fire station/place of baloting* that's why you should have multiple eyes(from different parties and independent) on the box before counting, most vote systems have. also, in normal voting there's no risk that the vote getting compromised would leave it so that your identity can be tied to what you voted.

why don't they just arrange beforehand voting soon enough that the votes can be transferred normally, or is this just "hey lets cut the costs and BUY this service instead of doing what were supposed to"?

Re:Compromised ballots?

[mc6809e]

Ballots could be compromised by the electioneers at your local library/fire station/place of baloting-- that was never the real check. The check on ballot tampering has always been:
- statistical anomalies to spot possible tampering


Do you think they really bother checking anything at all?

For example, what should be made of Philadelphia's (mostly democrat)voter registration rate of over 98% in the 2000 election?

There's nothing fishy about 98%+ of eligible voters being registered?

They must have an incredible sense of civic duty.

Re:Compromised ballots?

[surprise_audit]

If it's such a big hairy deal about people knowing how you vote, how the heck do exit polls work?? Do the networks make large assumptions about the vote split based on a small sample of people that really don't care who knows how they voted??

Re:Compromised ballots?

[OSUJoe]

"Ballots could be compromised by the electioneers at your local library/fire station/place of baloting-- that was never the real check."

But it's still been an important one. I, for one, am volunteering to be a precinct observor in my city, ensuring that neither side gets any unfair advantage.

When you've got the whole process happening behind closed doors, this type of observing is not an option.

Re:Compromised ballots?

[cranos]

Do the networks make large assumptions about the vote split based on a small sample of people that really don't care who knows how they voted??

In a word, yes. That is exactly what they do. They grab a random sample of people from each booth and ask how they voted, they then make a guess based on those who answered.

Re:Compromised ballots?

[Ironsides]

anonymity is critical to the practice of democracy.

Then don't vote using Absentee Balot. After all, they have to see how you voted and you have to sign the sheet in order to vote. In fact, why not just outlaw absentee voting altogether? Why not just make it impossible for anyone that is outside their district on election day to vote? Like a good large chunk of college students that go to school out of state or more than 30 min from where they live and people that are overseas (military, ambassadors etc).

No matter how you do absentee voting, you give up a lttle anonymity. And if you didn't have to sign the sheets, you'd have a lot of voter fraud. "Lets see, 300 absentee voters, 300,000 absentee votes. I wonder which are the fake ones."

Re:Compromised ballots?

[barzok]

Nothing terribly fishy if there's a motor-voter law in effect. Anyone with a driver's license would be registered to vote.

Re:Compromised ballots?

[zerblat]

If it's such a big hairy deal about people knowing how you vote, how the heck do exit polls work??

Because to most people it isn't such a big deal. However, to some people it is, and that's the reason for keeping ballots secret.

Do the networks make large assumptions about the vote split based on a small sample of people that really don't care who knows how they voted??

Yes, that's exactly how it works.

Re:Compromised ballots?

[BakaHoushi]

I live in New York, and when I got my Driver's PERMIT alone they signed me up to vote (though, sadly, I turn 18 a week or two AFTER the elections. Talk about poor timing.)

Thus, yeah, if Philadelphia has a similar law, it's not surprising they'd have such a high voter registration percent.

Re:Compromised ballots?

[DavidBrown]

That's not the way motor-voter works. Registration to vote is not automatic when you get or renew a driver's license. They just give you very easy access to the forms.

Re:Compromised ballots?

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

davejenkins is as wrong as wrong can be. The "Australian Ballot" system has remarkably strong checks on ballot integrity and trail. davejenkins has never taken a close look at a polling place, apparently.

At the beginning of the day, an elections worker opens a ballot box to make sure it is empty, under the watchful eyes of observers from contesting political parties (e.g. a Democrat and a Republican). Given their contrary desires about election outcome, no observer would consent to pre-stuffing the ballot (i.e. they might like fake ballot of their own party, but not of the other party).

Then the ballot box is sealed, and a lock is placed on it. The box is also watched by those mentioned observers during the course of the day, so stuffing becomes difficult.

At the end of the day, everyone watches the box being unlocked; watches the ballots being pulled out and shuffled (to increase anonymity for early- or late-voters by eliminating sequence).

Then under the watchful eye of all the observers (and of several elections workers), the ballots are counted and sorted. Totals recorded. Vote tallies posted at the polling place. Procedures signed off on by judges and observers. And the records sealed back up into envelopes or lock boxes.

NONE of these safeguards exist in Omega's secret system that lacks any observers.

Re:Compromised ballots?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

It is a big deal, and you are spoiled, by living in a society that - for the past sixty years or so - kept a certain amount of integrity with regard to its voting laws.

You have creatures like John Ashcroft on the loose. He is the public, acceptable face of this creature! Imagine how horrible its warty ass must be...

Re:Compromised ballots?

[Gleef]

Nothing terribly fishy [about 98% of eligible voters being registered in Philadelphia] if there's a motor-voter law in effect. Anyone with a driver's license would be registered to vote.

This is Philadelphia we're talking about. A huge (certainly larger than 2%) portion of the adult population of Philadelphia has no car, no driver's license, and counts on public transportation to get around.

Even LA and Detroit (both famous for their high car usage) have substantial licenseless populations.

Re:Compromised ballots?

[Zachary Kessin]

Just because I may be willing to tell you who I voted for does not mean that I don't care. If I have a sign of my lawn saying "Vote for X" it will be pretty clear who I am going to vote for. On the other hand I want the right to keep it to myself. If I chose to tell you thats fine, but its my choice.

Re:Compromised ballots?

[jandrese]

Even people with no car need a government issued photo ID to do just about anything anymore. In Virginia (don't know about Philly), you can get a non-drivers license ID if you don't drive. Guess where you get it: the DMV. I wouldn't be surprised if Philly is the same, and they give you the same votor registration form no matter what kind of ID you're getting.

Re:Compromised ballots?

[kezze]

As long as you're voting for Kerry, there's nothing to be ashamed of.

Re:Compromised ballots?

[Knetzar]

One way to handle this would be to have votes handled federally instead of at the state level. It would be nice to be able to vote anywhere in the country, and even places oversees (such as embassies, and military bases).

Re:Compromised ballots?

[davejenkins]

The system you outline only increases the set of eyeballs watching the box, eyeballs attached to minds that can be coerced and bought/blackmailed/forced-with-the-comfy-chair.

The mathematical checks I described are still going to be used if something seems fishy.

Actually, the checks you describe only support my post.

That is only one corruption of thousands.

[Futurepower(R)]

There are many, many situations of this nature. See Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government

If i understand the editorial correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem is not only that secrecy can be breached, but that it will be breached. After all you have to waive your right to a secret ballot.

As if this wasn't bad enough already (though you might make an argument that it is justifiable in some extreme situations), the company that handles the ballots is far from non-partisan and there is no way to independently verify that the ballots are handled the way they should be handled.

Finally, as an outside observer, I just don't get it that after the distater of the last presidential election in Florida, that also involved problems with absentee ballots from military personal, btw., things like these are still possible in the US. I get the feeling, that either the US can't get its act together (though I think that is very unlikely), or those in charge don't want to get their act together.

Not a big deal - yet

[iamacat]

US government so far didn't give any sign it would prosecute people based on their vote. The real problems, in the order importance are lack of choice (Republican vs Democratic, what if I disagree with both on different issues?), people not voting and only then mistakes in vote count.

Human rights violations with 9/11 as an excuse raise a vague concern that someday a "pro-terrorist" vote will become an issue. But as of today, anyone who is affraid of being punished for voting Democratic or Republican probably should be isolated from society because of mental instability.

Re:Not a big deal - yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting indeed.

The right to a secret vote is one of the fundamental principles a democratic society is build on. To simply call anyone who is concerned about the weakening of that fundamental principal a loony is, ehm, interesting.

Besides, nobody said they were prosecuting people for the way they vote, but not voting secretly at least opens the possibility that you might face some form of negative consequences for your vote. Even if this fear is totally unfounded, this may well influence the vote of some people and bam you have an unfair election.

Besides, this procedure lacking secrecy is not the only concern as anyone reading the article can easily find out.

I just hope that not many people dismiss sorrow over taking away basic democratic rights as easily as you do.

Re:Not a big deal - yet

[chewy_2000]

Incidentally, the secret ballot wasn't developed by the US or the UK as you may expect, but Australia back when it was a colony.
Wikipedia has details.
Not sure what relevence this has to the thread, so mod me down if you want, but I find it kind of interesting that a mere convict colony developed this 'fundamental principle a democratic society is built on'.

Re:Not a big deal - yet

[wfberg]

Ancient Athens had secret ballots. They placed either a white or black marble into a vase. The color of the ball could not be observed as they put their hand (holding the marble) into the vase.

The marbles being oftentimes spherical, this is where the name ball-ot derives from.

The things you learn in high-school..

Though IIRC there were earlier examples of secret ballots, going back to either ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia, I forget which.

Re:Not a big deal - yet

[kalidasa]

Excellent post. I'm not 100% sure about this - maybe one of the Aussies on the list could correct me - but I believe that South Australia was never a "convict colony" in the sense of receiving transported prisoners - I believe it was founded as a colony of free settlers, unlike the older New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land (a.k.a., Tasmania). True, convicts with tickets of leave, emancipated convicts, and the children of convicts (as the free settlers insulting callled them, "currency") probably did make up some of the population by that point (besides, plenty of the convicts were there in NSW for either petty crimes motivated by poverty or political crimes) so your point probably isn't damaged, but I thought it important to preserve the historical distinction. See Stuart Macintyre, *A Concise History of Australia*, pp. 80-81; there's probably something in Hughes' *The Fatal Shore*. I think Victoria, which first passed the law (but was beaten to practical use by South Australia) was also established as a free colony, but I couldn't find any support for that in the sources at hand.

Re:Not a big deal - yet

[chewy_2000]

Yes, looks like you're right. It does ring a bell, but as I come from Tasmania, perhaps the most notorious convict colony, I tend to forget that other states are a bit different.

However, South Australia was only established as a commercial venture in 1831 by the South Australia Company through the sale of land to free settlers. This differed from other Australian states, which were either established as penal colonies or made use of convict labour.
Once again, Wikipedia to the rescue.

Re:Not a big deal - yet

[williamhb]

But as of today, anyone who is affraid of being punished for voting Democratic or Republican probably should be isolated from society because of mental instability.

Unfortunately there is a more realistic counter-example in this topic. A serving soldier could easily feel that if he were to vote Democrat (voting against the person who sent him to war) and his hypothetical commanding officer who strongly supports Republican policies was to discover he voted Democrat, then that might affect affect his promotion prospects by making his c/o take a dimmer view of him than he had before. Essentially it's a matter of social conformity. If there is a reasonable expectation that your vote will be known by others, then there is a psychological pressure to conform to something that is socially acceptable amongst your group. And in the army, where more than 80% of voters vote Republican, that pressure probably would influence some swinging voters to change their votes to Republican.

So in terms of "will Private X be sent to Guantanamo", of course it's not a big deal. But in terms of having an election which does its utmost to avoid external pressures on voters to change their votes, it is an issue.

Re:Not a big deal - yet

[http]

To put it kindly, that's an inane comment you've made.

Bush has made it abundantly clear that the current motto is "with us or against us", and his administration has successfully eroded several of the American populous' civil liberties^Wprivileges. Here's a suggestion: look up "northland" and "cuba" in your favourite search engine (though google is recommmended). READ the fucking document. Your government prepared it at considerable expense. Good luck getting through it without crying. You will then realize that, in any scenario you care to imagine involving the American government, if you are thinking "Our government would never do something that evil", you are wrong.

Punish people for voting the wrong way? You're right, there's no sign yet. That's only because there's not yet an official method to observe how specific members of the general population vote. Once that's out of the way, try voting for John Walker on your non-secret ballot. He's an American Citizen, after all. (Does the Office of the President have the same age restriction as Senator?) Brave enough to go on record as supporting him?

The secret ballot is not something to take lightly, and any thin edge should have everyone leaping up, loudly. No, louder than that, you fucktards. (no, not you, iamacat).

You poor people. I'm so glad I don't live there.

Re:Not a big deal - yet

[earlgreen]

Human rights violations with 9/11 as an excuse raise a vague concern that someday a "pro-terrorist" vote will become an issue. But as of today, anyone who is affraid of being punished for voting Democratic or Republican probably should be isolated from society because of mental instability.

There's no shortage of voter harassment in the US. Ask any african american living in most parts of the country. Ask anyone that's been campaigning or demonstrating against Bush or his policies. We have use of law enforcement to intimidate and beat down the opposing opinion all over our news just about every day lately, even to some extent on Fox and CNN. But somehow beating up and arresting peaceful demonstrators (and even random passers-by as it turned out at the RNC) or harassing elderly african americans in Florida doesn't make it into the american conciousness as voting-related harassment. Well, I think it most certainly is.

They donate both sides

[kmac06]

All big companies donate large amounts of money to both political parties. It's too late to do any research on this particular one, but I would be surprised if they donated money to Republicans without donating to Democrats.

Geez, take your tinfoil hat off...

Re:They donate both sides

[kalidasa]

Here's the data:

http://www.campaignmoney.com/finance.asp?type=io &c ycle=04&criteria=OMEGA+TECNOLOGIES+INCORPORATED%2F PRES

Williams, Patricia A Ms. .
OMEGA TECNOLOGIES INCORPORATED/PRES
VA
600
03/04/2003
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE - REPUBLICAN

Williams, Patricia A Ms. .
OMEGA TECNOLOGIES INCORPORATED/PRES
VA
1,250
04/29/2003
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE - REPUBLICAN

Williams, Patricia A Ms. .
Omega Tecnologies Incorporated/Pres
VA
1,000
06/27/2003
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE - REPUBLICAN

Williams, Patricia A Ms. .
Omega Tecnologies Incorporated/Pres
VA
1,250
06/30/2003
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE - REPUBLICAN

Williams, Patricia A Ms. .
Omega Tecnologies Incorporated/Pres
VA
1,250
07/30/2003
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE - REPUBLICAN

Note that it's all soft money - none directly to the candidate. That's a sign of an insider. There is nothing listed at Campaign Finance .com for her for any other election or candidate. Note, too, that I had to do some hunting to find this - in the database, the company name is mis-spelled "TECNOLOGIES" each time (rather strange, that). Nothing listed for '00, even though the company was founded in '91. If you go to the website, you'll see that it is not a big company, but is officially a "minority, woman-owned, small disadvantaged business." http://www.omega-its.com/about.htm If you had read even the summary carefully, let alone the editorial, you would have noticed that she's part of an advisory board - one usually doesn't do that for opposing parties.

I can't in the 10 minutes I've chosen to dedicate to research this particular one manage to find evidence that Ms. Williams is on the Business Advisory Board, but here's a description of that board:

What is the Business Advisory Council?
The Business Advisory Council is a small, prestigious group of conservative businessmen and women, who have joined with the NRCC to advocate a progressive, conservative, pro-business agenda. The Business Advisory Council allows for these individuals to pool their expertise and know-how to to bring some common business sense to Washington.

(I have to admit that I find the use of the term "progressive, conservative" hilarious, as they are by both their dictionary definitions and their historical ideological meanings antonyms.)

Re:They donate both sides

[mc6809e]

All big companies donate large amounts of money to both political parties. It's too late to do any research on this particular one, but I would be surprised if they donated money to Republicans without donating to Democrats.

Wait, is it companies that donate money or individuals that donate money?

I think it most all the money comes from individuals. Sure, they've got to report who it is they work for (CEOs included), but they're still considered individual donors.

Re:They donate both sides

[darylb]

As the poster above has pointed out, contributors to campaigns have to identify their employers. This doesn't mean the COMPANY is involved in any way.

In this case, it looks like an individual giving money, not the corporation. Ms. Williams certainly appears to have strong political interests, but so what? The MoveOn crowd's not upset that George Soros and dozens of celebrities are deliberately using their money or public standing to stump for a candidate. How's Bruce Springsteen's political tour any different from Patricia Williams?

Re:They donate both sides

[d^2b]

(I have to admit that I find the use of the term "progressive, conservative" hilarious, as they are by both their dictionary definitions and their historical ideological meanings antonyms.)

Well, that's true in most of the world, but in Canada...

We had for many years a party called the "Progressive Conservatives". (It just disappeared via a hostile takeover from itself, but I digress from my digression). It must have meant something to the people involved, since in the east their voters dropped them like a radioactive potato when they removed progressive from their name.

I guess in this instance "progressive" was supposed to be a modifier of "conservative".

Re:They donate both sides

[Ohreally_factor]

Neither Soros nor Springstein are offering "election insurance" to Bush.

Re:They donate both sides

[blargorama]

Your sense of reasoning is about as good as our current president - not worth a fuck. I wasn't aware that George Soros or Bruce Springsteen had a contract to handle absentee ballots from the military. Pull your head out of your ass, fuckwit!

why voting anonymous anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

This begs the question why is voting anonymous anyway? Am i somehow under threat if i vote for kerry or bush or even the communist party candidate and gasp someone finds out :o ....it seems to me that if it was simply published then we could actaully see if the sytem is fucked....ie hanging chads and all that. I think our democracy is more threatened by the possibity of faulty even intentional voteing fraud created having an anonymous voting proceedure then some proceeved unknown risk of having each vote stamped with a name.

stendec@gmail.com

Re:why voting anonymous anyway

[Superjhemp]

Am i somehow under threat if i vote for kerry or bush or even the communist party candidate and gasp someone finds out :o

Maybe not you, but lots of other people might feel uncomfortable to vote Democrat if their boss votes Republican. A threat doesn't need to be a threat to your health and lifelyhood; a threat to your career is more than enough.

And then, there's the specter of "vote buying". If ballots are secret, it's much more difficult to buy votes, because you cannot be sure that they guy whose vote you bought really voted the way he promised ;-)

And then, the special case of the armed forces. Even if Joe the Soldier is brave enough to vote Democrat (knowing full well that his hierarchy would prefer Republican), and does not care that his might lead to his removal from the armed forces, we still have a problem: Now suddenly the Republicans have an army at their disposal which they know that they can trust. No risk of the army siding with the people, if ordered to commit unconstitutional acts, because the Republicans will have "weeded out" the untrustworthy elements before.

Re:why voting anonymous anyway

[Zorilla]

this is already against the law...and a good way to get sued....and if your boss is going to fire you over who you vote for rather then your job performance then you will be looking for a new job soon anyway.

Who says your boss is going to be telling the truth as to the reason he/she fired you? And as for looking for a new job, I think we all know about that one now.

Re:why voting anonymous anyway

[surprise_audit]

No risk of the army siding with the people, if ordered to commit unconstitutional acts, because the Republicans will have "weeded out" the untrustworthy elements before.

On the other hand, if you weed out the "untrustworthy" elements, and then try shenigans, you run the risk of having a bunch of pissed off, highly trained, recently-ex soldiers taking independant action. And as spies and freedom fighters all over the world have demonstrated, it's far, far easier for loosely grouped individuals to fade into the background and reappear elsewhere than it is for a whole army to track them down.

Not that I'm advocating armed insurrection, but I shouldn't have to remind anyone that that's what got this country started...

Re:why voting anonymous anyway

[ctr2sprt]

This is out there even for Slashdot conspiracy theories. Are you seriously trying to claim that the Republicans are preparing the military for a coup d'etat? And you genuinely think that, purely by virtue of party affiliation, the military will actually go along with this?!

Well, I guess they need to do it to combat the systematic infiltration of our nation's educational systems by Democratic pot-smoking radicals, who as we all know are trying to corrupt our youths into sharing their absurd moral relativism and casual attitude toward sex. So in the end it'll be a battle between the military and the nation's stoned and post-coital youth. (I think the Republicans might win that one.)

Go ahead and mod me flamebait, because I am. (Well, I tried to be a little funny too. I don't believe a word of my second paragraph, but you know it's a popular conspiracy theory among some Republicans.) But it boggles the mind that anyone could possibly be so insanely paranoid as to buy Superjhemp's last paragraph, and at least 3 people are. Well, maybe I should give the mods the benefit of the doubt; I was totally on board with him until his concluding "theory." But still!

Re:why voting anonymous anyway

[narmer65]

Yes, it is a bit out there. But, taking a look at history and the rest of the world, it's not impossible.

Re:why voting anonymous anyway

[Animats]

And then, there's the specter of "vote buying". If ballots are secret, it's much more difficult to buy votes, because you cannot be sure that they guy whose vote you bought really voted the way he promised ;-)

This, incidentally, is one of the problems with paper ballots. In Chicago, the way it worked was that the ward heeler stood outside the polling place. He'd voted early, but didn't put his ballot in the box. Instead, he kept it and marked it. As he paid off voters, he'd give them a pre-marked ballot to deposit. When they came back with a blank one, they were paid.

This sort of thing is rare today. Those old-line regular party organizations are dead. Nobody has enough people in place any more to pull that off. Effort today goes into sucking up to donors and buying ads.

Re:why voting anonymous anyway

[justins]

But it boggles the mind that anyone could possibly be so insanely paranoid as to buy Superjhemp's last paragraph, and at least 3 people are.

Which part of his "insanely paranoid" paragraph can you not find historical precedent for? I don't think it is happening here, but it's foolish to say it never could.

Your rights and freedoms are being thrown away

[dalesc]

Those of us who take an interest in the state of the US watch in sorrow and some concern at the rate at which your cherished rights and freedoms are being stamped on by this administration. Bush only got in after some very suspicious vote counting. The Republicans aren't too bothered what it takes to keep him there.

Re:Your rights and freedoms are being thrown away

[mc6809e]

Bush only got in after some very suspicious vote counting. The Republicans aren't too bothered what it takes to keep him there.

Thousands Registered to Vote in 2 States-Report

"But the newspaper found that between 400 and 1,000 registered voters voted twice in at least one election, a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68 percent are Democrats, 12 percent are Republicans and 16 percent didn't align themselves with a party, the newspaper reported on Sunday."

Feel any better?

Re:Your rights and freedoms are being thrown away

[centipetalforce]

Those of us who take an interest in the state of the US watch in sorrow and some concern at the rate at which your cherished rights and freedoms are being stamped on by this administration. Bush only got in after some very suspicious vote counting. The Republicans aren't too bothered what it takes to keep him there

Trust me it hurts much more to watch it happening to my own country. Now that Bush apparently has a double digit lead, It is begginning to become obvious that not only will BU__SH__ probably win, he may even win by getting the popular vote this time.
I can only hope that the rest of the world realizes there are still some people in america who are AGAINST Bush and everything he stands for.

Re:Your rights and freedoms are being thrown away

[cranos]

But you are in the US military and you have to obey your officers period. Thus voting against your Commander in Chief *should* get you in court!

I'm sorry but since when does volunteering to defend your country equate to losing out on your basic rights?

No one has the right to take away your right to have your say on who runs your country unless you severly fuckup. Unless of course you are saying that the military is full of violent criminals and psychopaths who would have their vote denied to them on those grounds.

Re:Your rights and freedoms are being thrown away

[transient]

All I have to say is, if Bush gets re-elected, I better not read one fucking word about repealing the 22nd amendment.

Re:Your rights and freedoms are being thrown away

[kalidasa]

Those percentages are an artifact of the sample - people from New York City who summer in Florida. Do you know what the votes were like in New York City in the 2000 presidential election? 1,633,525 for the Democrats, 375,792 for the Republicans (I'm counting the party votes, not the individual votes - see the official report here, specifically here - because we don't know how the New York Daily News would have categorized votes for "conservative" and "liberal" in their study - it's interesting that those numbers show a much closer split, 25,130 Conservative [Bush] versus 29,386 Liberal [Gore]) out of a total of 2,283,261, for total percentages of 71.5 percent Democrat, 16.5 percent Republican (if you include the Liberal numbers with the Democrat, you get 72.8%, and if you include the Conservative numbers with the Republican, 17.6%). For a sample size of 46,000 out of 2.3 million, those numbers are pretty similar.

Note, too, that it gives the percentages of people that are registered in both states - 46,000

Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68 percent are Democrats, 12 percent are Republicans and 16 percent didn't align themselves with a party, the newspaper reported on Sunday.

- but not of people it thinks VOTED in both states - 1,000 at worst:

But the newspaper found that between 400 and 1,000 registered voters voted twice in at least one election, a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

That 1,000 is not a good sample of the 48,000, because their motivations are different. The difference between those two numbers is the difference beween neglect and deliberate fraud. The 48,000 are simply registered in two states - since registrations usually aren't "closed" - you usually don't call the town you're moving out of and ask them to take you off the voter rolls - they could very well be people who registered to vote in Florida, and voted in Florida, when they got down there, and registered to vote in New York, and voted in New York - in a different election - when they got up there. You can't apply the "neglect" numbers to make an argument about which party is more likely to commit intentional voter fraud.

Since the percentages almost exactly reflect their sample, the study tells us nothing about Democratic versus Republican voter fraud. Indeed, the newspaper study (from an historically conservative newspaper), at least as it is characterized by the Reuters article, looks as though it deliberately limited its sample to New York City in order to come out with a result that would embarrass the Democratic Party. Now you'll probably say "well, they chose New York City because it's a New York paper and that's what their readership would care about." Ahh, but you see, the Reuters article cited the percentages, but didn't contextualize them by citing the overall voter percentages of their sample - a classic tactic of those who want to lie with statistics. So either the Reuters article is representing what the New York Daily News reported, or they left out the context, and thereby distorted what the New York Daily News reported.

Note that this took me 6 minutes to work out, using Google and your posting. I'm sure that the New York Daily News author, or the author of the Reuters article, could have done the same thing. I wish I knew whether they did or not.

Re:Your rights and freedoms are being thrown away

[intnsred]

Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68 percent are Democrats, 12 percent are Republicans and 16 percent didn't align themselves with a party, the newspaper reported on Sunday.

That's bad, but aren't those individual acts?

What we know for sure (see link below) is that the Republican Party rigged the 2000 election to allow the person who got fewer votes to take the White House.

Whether it was Florida's counting illegal military ballots, whether it was Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris' use of databases to prevent 90K+ Floridians from voting because they were "suspected" felons, whether it was the Supreme Court voting 5 to 4 to stop counting ballots when 2 justices out of the 5 voting to stop counting had close relatives (a son and wife!) working for the Bush campaign, it is crystal clear that the 2000 vote was cooked.

I'm not saying the Democrats are any better. But lots of retirees being registered to vote in two places does not show a conspiracy to rig the vote. It could be a case of many spacey elderly people forgetting where they're registered. The election in Florida in 2000 definitely shows that it was rigged in many ways.

Re:Your rights and freedoms are being thrown away

[Mycroft_VIII]

What you said could be missleading to some. What the Constitution does say on treaties:

"Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Basically putting them on par with federal law, not the constitution. Though they would have 'the force of the contitution' as you said, some might mistakenly think that meant 'as if part of the constitution'.
But treaties entered into by the US do overide state laws and constitutions.
One other binder on treaties is in article II section 2 clause 2: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;... ". With 'he' being the president. (the remainder II:2:2 speaks of ambassadors and supreem court justices and such)

Mycroft

Re:Your rights and freedoms are being thrown away

[Daniel Dvorkin]

But you are in the US military and you have to obey your officers period.
Thus voting against your Commander in Chief *should* get you in court!

Parent post isn't a troll; it's just frighteningly ignorant.

When you're in the US military (or any other military) you are obligated to obey lawful orders from your officers and your C-in-C. (This distinction is necessary because -- though the Bush campaign hopes you forget this -- the President is not a military officer.) "Vote for me" is not a lawful order. End of story.

Re:Your rights and freedoms are being thrown away

[Firethorn]

you have to obey your officers period.

Not in this military! Maybe in some other countries, but in the US Military we have the concept of illegal orders. We have the duty to disobey if we are ordered to commit an illegal act. The most obvious (and briefed) are Geneva convention violations. People have been tried and convicted for following illegal orders. Though it does tend to be a tough decision. You know that there will be court martials(trials) all around if you have to invoke the illegal order refusal.

Re:Your rights and freedoms are being thrown away

[moof1138]

FWIW, the Time poll that showed a double digit lead had some serious issues. First it was taken during the convention. The one poll taken during the DNC gave Kerry a thirteen point lead, and was ignored as it should have been - polls taken during a convention are inherently misleading. Second Time changed their methodology. For this one poll - they pushed on undecideds during the convention. The poll was conducted entirely unprofessionally - pushing undecideds while a convention is heppening is ludicrous. It almost looks like they were trying to get a bandwagon effect to swing other polls to Bush, though Time is typically professional, so I doubt this and hope that they were just really off the ball.

Re:Your rights and freedoms are being thrown away

[FlimFlamboyant]

All of this incessant whining about how Bush supposedly "stole" the election just blows me away. You act as though Gore won the election, then Bush challenged it and took it away from him; when in fact it was Bush who was the winner EVERY SINGLE TIME. He won the first count, he won the machine recount, AND he won the hand count which came after. Who demanded these recounts? The LOSER, Al Gore and Co.

So who was trying to steal the election from whom, hm? People speak of Florida like it's a special case; as if no other states suffered from hanging chads and other voting anomalies. So why Florida? Why not Iowa, or California, or any other state? Because Florida was the closest, and Al Gore knew that if he was going to STEAL the election, that would be his best chance!

There's a margin of error in every state, at every election. It's not a right-wing or even left-wing conspiracy, so put your tin foil hats away, stop complaining, and don't forget to vote.

Full disclosure, please

[Anonymous Coward]

The NYT editorial board sez: Omega Technologies is not an acceptable choice to run the program. Its chief executive, Patricia Williams, has donated $6,600 in this election cycle to the National Republican Congressional Committee, and serves on the committee's Business Advisory Council.

Is it really so terrible to give money to a political campaign? At least one member of the family which owns the New York Times (Dr. Judith P. Sulzberger) donated $2000 to the John Kerry campaign, $5000 to 'Victory Campaign 2004', and $20000 to the Democrat National Committee.

Does this mean I can no longer trust the New York Times to treat facts with a modicum of fairness? Is it inappropriate for me to get factual information about political campaigns from them?

The NYT editors should quit their whining. Almost every person in the US has some political preferences, whether he or she has given money to a campaign or not. Having a strong political preference does not automatically make a person untrustworthy.

They should stick to criticizing the process here .. not the people.

Re:Full disclosure, please

[Teun]

I think so when it is company money.
If the company I work for would support a political party there's a (good) chance it would not be the party of my choice.
I would be very upset if money that was partially made through my efforts would go to these people.
Commercial entities have no business spending their money on influencing what should be a democratic process.

The people (voters) should be the only allowed to finance parties, maybe with some very tightly controlled subsidies from the government to give start-ups a chance.

On a side line, what is democratic about some people being able to spend thousants or even millions of $$ on a party while others could hardly afford a 10 bucks contribution every four years?
Limiting donations to $10.- per year would as well end the ridiculous circus elections have become and force politicians to stay on topic.

Re:Full disclosure, please

[cranos]

When the company is directly involved in the voting process yes it is a terrible thing. At all times impartiality and the appearance of impartiality must be maintained.

This is the same reason why allowing election officials to be directly selected by the incumbant party is insane.

Re:Full disclosure, please

[mc6809e]

I think so when it is company money.
If the company I work for would support a political party there's a (good) chance it would not be the party of my choice.
I would be very upset if money that was partially made through my efforts would go to these people.
Commercial entities have no business spending their money on influencing what should be a democratic process.

Are you sure companies give this money?

As far as I can tell, the money always comes from individuals.

Sure, they've got to report who it is they work for (CEOs included), but that's not the same as the company giving money.

Re:Full disclosure, please

[kalidasa]

In this case, it is not (at least, not officially, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt on this one) company money, it is personal money. However, yes, companies do give money, lots of it.

Re:Full disclosure, please

[J. J. Ramsey]

"Is it really so terrible to give money to a political campaign? At least one member of the family which owns the New York Times (Dr. Judith P. Sulzberger) donated $2000 to the John Kerry campaign, $5000 to 'Victory Campaign 2004', and $20000 to the Democrat National Committee."

Ms. Sulzberger doesn't count the votes, or get to see them. A business entrusted with the kind of power that Omega Technologies has ought to be above reproach, preferably non-partisan or bipartisan, but definitely transparent and accountable. Omega Technologies, however, seems to be none of those.

Re:Full disclosure, please

[FlopEJoe]

We will never have a solution if we limit the companies to: None of your members have donated to any political party. To point out one individual does not a conspiracy make... even if you limit it to management. People donate but that doesn't make them capable of a crime. Just because I want X to win doesn't mean I'll break the law and try to register Snowball III to vote for him/her.

To affect a crime like this would take a lot of peeps. Anyone who is remotely aware, from programmers to the CEO would have to want the same outcome and be willing to commit a crime. I'm not saying it can't be done but it seems a little early for the tin-foil hats.

Re:Full disclosure, please

[GarryOwen]

The reason we allow some people to spend more on campaign donations than others is because of two principles of American society. First, we are fairly capitalistic, which means we allow people to aquire and spend their own wealth as they see fit(yes, I know there are restrictions on what you can buy). Secondly, the first amendment protects the freedom of speech, especially political speech. Donating to causes you like is considered freedom of speech. Thus when you combine these two principles of our society, you get our current situation. As for companies donating, since you do not control the way the company is run (that belongs to the owner/board of directors) , you as the worker can only have a say about where your own personal donations go.
If you want to talk about really corruption of campaign donations, look towards the unions. In some states, you are forced to join a union as part of the conditions of employment. As part of this forced joining, you are forced to pay union dues (which is basically taxes by a non-goverment entity). Then these union dues can be used to make campaign donations for things you are very personally against.

Re:Full disclosure, please

[ageoffri]

"Ms. Sulzberger doesn't count the votes, or get to see them. A business entrusted with the kind of power that Omega Technologies has ought to be above reproach, preferably non-partisan or bipartisan, but definitely transparent and accountable. Omega Technologies, however, seems to be none of those."

Actually it is just as bad if not worse that she has donated large sums of money to the Democrats. Omega Techologies just counts the votes, the New York Time influences thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people. Her bias could easily lead us to ruin, just as easily as fraud in vote counting could.

I also find it amusing how many people here think Bush can't win without cheating. Yet look at the latest polls.

Re:Full disclosure, please

[mc6809e]

In this case, it is not (at least, not officially, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt on this one) company money, it is personal money. However, yes, companies do give money, lots of it.

Where is this documented?

Seriously. I'd like to see the numbers.

A couple of points

[ErichTheWebGuy]

First of all, it's kind of lame that the company would not give any information about its security procedures, while another source (it would seem) was readily available that details the whole thing.

Second, the Business Advisory Council is (in my opinion) a total crock of shit. I used to work for a company whose CEO won the Business Advisory Council's "Businessman of the Year" award. Let me tell you, the award is (in my opinion) pretty much given to people who donate large sums to the party. Oh did I mention that the company mentioned above is now under the control of a receiver, and is also under investigation by the IRS Criminal Investigvation Division? Oh, did I mention the grand jury preceedings? But I digress......

Remember, you cannot trust anyone, the whole damned system is corrupt, and all parts biased, one way or the other. (The "in my opinion" statements above are merely a CYA thing)

Ummm...

[The Tyro]

That wouldn't put a huge dent in the military, which tends to vote republican 80+ percent of the time (I saw a statistic at one time that showed military officers voted republican 8 to 1 over democrat... Here's an article about the Duke Study ).

I'd have to say from my own experience (former military officer talking here) that the percentage is probably higher than they think. I can count on one hand the number of real liberal democrats I encountered during all my years in the military.

Bush is respected by almost all the current and former US military personnel I know, in distinct contrast to Bill Clinton. When I was in the service, many officers and enlisted so despised Clinton that they refused to display any certificates, awards, decorations, citations, etc with his signature on them. Despite the prohibition on using "contemptuous words" against the commander-in-chief and elected officials, most guys were (privately) very frank about how they felt... The level of enmity was really remarkable.

Re:Ummm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. You aren't in the service now, but you seem to think you know what the guys on the ground think about Bush sending them to their deaths.

I had expected to see a decline in the number of deaths since the beginning of the "Iraqi" government on June 28, 2004. However, my analysis shows that deaths per day has actually increased from 1.83 deaths per day (during the pre-Iraq Occupation phase) to 2.02 deaths per day in the post-Iraqi government phase (the invasion phase had 4.12 deaths per day).

Another way to view this data is to examine linear regression lines of deaths per day. When I first plotted this data in April 2004, the regression including the invasion phase trended downward, with expected deaths per day reaching zero sometime in 2006. The regression line excluding the invasion phase trended upward, with expected deaths steadily climbing over time.

As of August 27, 2004, both regression lines now trend upward, with no end in sight. Moreover, the predicted death per days since April closely fit the actual deaths per day. I have watched how stories of US military deaths were almost always covered by yahoo.com, up until the Iraqi government installation.At that time, reporting of US deaths has fallen off almost completely, despite an actual increase in deaths per day.

No wonder Mr. Bush's popularity stopped sliding so fast.

US Military Dead during Iraqi War.
3 September 2004. Total 1,013 US Dead -- 81 British, Iraqi and others, not included.

Re: Ummm...

[The Tyro]

On the off chance that you really don't know, I'll try to offer some context.

Much of the ill will regarding clinton came from his history. He stated that he "loathed the military", and subsequently dodged the draft. Despite this, he still managed to get himself elected commander in chief... that really rankled the older vietnam-era guys that were still around... some of them couldn't say Clinton's name without spitting. They resented very much having to salute and take orders from him (the younger guys resented Clinton for the same reasons, but it was really palpable among the older guys).

Clinton's sexual indiscretions were also a huge liability. Military members can be prosecuted under the UCMJ for adultery alone; sexual indiscretions with a subordinate (ie. Miss Lewinsky) are even worse. Many active duty members felt that Clinton, as commander in chief, should be held to the same standard. It's a pretty terrible example to set when the commander gets off for something that would earn a lowly Sergeant a court-martial...

Note: we haven't even started talking about his politics.

Anyway, that'll get you started... I'm sure some others in this forum can add some additional thoughts.

Re: Ummm...

[Savage Conan]

Being ex military myself I can tell you why they hated Clinton so much. Its because the vast majority of the military are morons and were easily brainwashed into hating him. Alot of it had to do with the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy he started in the military to allow gays. Many soldiers were convinced that gays didn't exist in the military until Clinton came along. This is untrue of course. Clinton also had no military experience so they saw him as a draft dodger. Just like Bush and Cheney. I once had a conversation with a military buddy of mine and he asked me how I could vote for Clinton in good conscience "after making the soldiers go to Bosnia". Looking at the Iraq war and its failure I wonder what that buddy thinks now of Clinton.

Re:Ummm...

[subsailor]

Bush is respected by almost all the current and former US military personnel I know, in distinct contrast to Bill Clinton.

You must have been out a while.

While there are still a large number of military who are pretty firmly GOP, I'd have to disagree with that "almost all" assessment. I'm active duty, and I've gotten into many a political conversation at my command, only to be surprised by just how many of my fellow servicemen are not Bush supporters at all. There are a surprising number (I'd estimate about 1/3 to 1/2 of those I've discussed it with) that are backing Kerry, mainly due to the Iraq war, which isn't supported as whole-hog in the military as some would think.

From my (admittedly anecdotal and unscientific) observations, the staunchly GOP ones in ranks are usually the older, more senior enlisteds and officers (I'm Navy, so for me that is the senior CPO's and Commanders/Captains/Admirals). But many "blueshirts" and junior officers, I'd hazard to say a majority, are against a second Bush term...even those who normally roger up Republican. The Iraq war is a big hot-button issue driving this.

It's interesting to me, in fact, to see how some reacted recently to the new "Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal" and "Global War on Terrorism Service Medal". These were awarded to those who served in units that were in certain actions listed as being under the GWOT. One of these was Operation Iraqi Freedom. I know several people who questioned the award of the GWOT medals for Operation Iraqi Freedom, as they didn't believe OIF was part of the GWOT. This started a rather heated debate recently (I managed to get right in the middle), with one officer telling people to jolly well not wear the medal if they didn't agree with it. I've not decided yet...I rate the medal since I served on a ship involved directly in OIF, but I question OIF being part of the GWOT myself. I don't wear the ribbon yet (though honestly I rarely wear a uniform that includes ribbons/medals...we don't wear ribbons/medals in our everyday working uniforms).

But to get back on topic, the military isn't as solidly GOP as people would think. Many junior soldiers/sailors won't come out and say it for fear of publicly disagreeing with the brass, but if you get a fly-on-the-wall perspective of deckplate discussions you'd see there is a lot of Kerry support in the ranks.

Re: Ummm...

[bluGill]

Its not his fault that he has powerful relatives, who are entirely capable of acting without his input. I'm not saying that he didn't ask for any help, but luck (being born right) happens to some. There are still questions about his service, but at least he did something.

Re: Ummm...

[YrWrstNtmr]

Bush's service in the TANG was no assurance of not going to Vietnam. The aircraft he flew (F-102) was in service there at the time, and his particular unit (147th FIG) regularly sent pilots there.

If the war had gone on longer, he would have accumulated the requisite number of flight hours, and been eligible for the PALACE ALERT program.

Clinton, OTOH, ran as far as he could.

Re: Ummm...

[Anonymous Coward]

If Bush wanted to serve, he would have. Period.

Re: Ummm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Its because the vast majority of the military are morons

That is a bit harsh. I think it is closer to when a family is of a particular religion, any new additions to that family will probably end up in the same religion without even considering the alternatves.

The millitary is also almost all men, which can't be left out of the equation. Men in the USA tend to be very insecure, so all you need to do is give the impression that Democrats are wusses and you will instantly have some Republicans.

Nevermind, you were right. They are morons.

Re: Ummm...

[Martigan80]

Military members can be prosecuted under the UCMJ for adultery alone

True--but how many do you know actually got prosecuted for it?
I'm sure the public doesn't even know what happens "sexually" during a deployment let alone a remote tour to say Korea. Most people I knew during the Clinton era didn't really care about the "extra sex", what they really cared about was the fact that he left the country during the war.

Re: Ummm...

[Savage Conan]

I am sorry, I was in the army. Maybe I painted too broad a stroke. Most people in the army are morons. I would swear to that under oath too. Most of the guys and gals that I came into contact with couldn't see past the uniform and come up with their own ideas. Give them a tatoo parlor, cigarettes, beer, and the occasional cup of free coffee and they were content.

Re: Ummm...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the war had gone on longer, he would have accumulated the requisite number of flight hours

At the rate he was showing up for duty, that seems rather unlikely.

Re: Ummm...

[Glonoinha]

It's a pretty terrible example to set when the commander gets off

Damn, you are pretty funny for someone writing at 06:47am EST. That's a mental image I didn't need, but laughed at anyways.

Re: Ummm...

[J. T. MacLeod]

Bush was on leave to work on a political campaign in Alabama as equivilant service. Even during his "missing time", he accumulated more than enough points to stay in good standing.

Here's a more exhaustive explanation that I can give.

Re: Ummm...

[Anonymous Coward]

But not enough flight hours to qualify for combat duty.

Re: Ummm...

[jrexilius]

Agreed and agreed. Having served under that administration during that time I can say it was rather upsetting to hear civilians make an endless line of excuses and exceptions for him when they would not have done the same for their husband, their boss at work, their friends, or the CO of a unit in the field.

That the person with the most power and responsibility in our country should be held to a lower standard then people serving and risking their lives or a even a measly CEO at some worthless company boggled my mind.

Re:Ummm...

[jrexilius]

Where Iraq falls into in a strategic sense rather than a tactical sense may be a good question for the medal debate.

If you talk with the some of the guys who may have done the war college or some of the more intelligent ring knockers they may bring up the strategic implications of the show of force on the region (in theory what was probably the attempt, not how well everything has been executed to date). People often use Libya as an example which the counter to that is that they were going that way anyways, but the desired effect was there.

The point is we can't invade every country that harbors terrorists but we can show them that they can be invaded and deposed. That the majority of the Iraqi regime has been eliminated would be the fear we would want to put in the minds of ruling parties in order to get them to think twice about supporting and maybe clamp down on terrorist activities in their country. Strategically if all we had done was invade Afghanistan it may not have had that effect on rulers in the middle-east region.

Anyways, some aspects of the Iraq war likely do have something to do with a strategic initiative for deterring state support of terrorism. The "war on terrorism" is actually more of an attempt at making fewer places hospitable to them and reducing their means of acquiring resources to carry out attacks.

Re:Ummm...

[subsailor]

You'll get no arguement from me as to Iraq under Hussein being a bad seed, or them likely being better off without him. But...there is no credible evidence showing any real links between Hussein's government and al Qaeda. Were there al Qaeda members in Iraq? Probably, like there are al Qaeda groups in nearly every predominantly Muslim nation in the Middle East (and elsewhere). But was Hussein supporting them, sponsoring them, or did he have contacts with them? The 9/11 report says no.

So did he have the WMD's, in blatant defiance of UN resolutions? Again, the data now shows he did not. Hey, maybe he *did* comply with UN resolutions to rid Iraq of WMDs...

So, he wasn't harboring/sponsoring al Qaeda (the presence of al Qaeda groups does not equal "harboring", unless we want to invade about 75% of the planet). He no longer had the WMD's. Not saying he was not an evil guy (he was/is), but every reason we had to invade Iraq under the global war on terror (or under the banner of "we're enforcing UN resolutions") was wrong. We blew it. Sooner we admit that an learn from the mistake, the better.

The strategic message our Iraq blunder sends? That we didn't learn our lesson in misguided wars in Vietnam.

Re:Ummm...

[subsailor]

No, I'm quite American. And on shore duty, though I am a submariner. Stationed in Pearl Harbor, if you really must know.

How did you figure me as being English?

Re:Ummm...

[subsailor]

Interesting. But our justifications for the Iraq invasion were links to al Qaeda and WMDs. I'm not defending Hussein's regime, mind you...I'm saying our reasoning for the invasion was flawed. Without significant change (i.e., massive beef-up in size) to our military, we can't invade every country with a group of terrorists in it. Our main beef (due to 9/11) was al Qaeda, which we seem to have forgotten about in the rush to Baghdad. We've still not run down ObL, and according to all the intel/terror alerts al Qaeda is still out there making threats against us and planning attacks (or at least keeping the Dept. of Homeland Security busy flipping the lights of the color coded alert system).

But we've been concentrating on Iraq, which, by all the post-invasion data, had nothing to do with 9-11/al Qaeda and no longer had the much-debated WMD's.

Re:Ummm...

[jrexilius]

I understand and agree that the WMD and Al Qaeda links were a bad way to represent the war.

My point was about the strategic attempt to put a tangible and specific fear in the minds of rulers in the region. The statement that, yes we can and will invade you and eliminate your regime, doesn't sound pleasant to civilians but is a powerful and necessary message. And you dont always convey that message fully by just carrying the big stick. The reason we want to convey that message is to give rulers in the region pause when deciding wether to grant access to Al Qaeda for a new training camp, or allowing safe passage, or looking the other way when funds are being laundered, or allowing vocal and obvious members of terrorist groups access to weapons and resources, etc. etc.

My point was the strategic impact of showing that we can and will act, which in that region is not the predominant view they have of our political will. I am not disagreeing that President Bush screwed the pooch on how he branded and executed it but the purpose isn't always in the way something is described.

Re:Ummm...

[subsailor]

Don't think so, though I'm adopted so it's difficult to really be sure...

Re:Ummm...

[druhol]

Hey, I've got a crazy idea.

How about instead of invading a relatively harmless (if unpleasant) mid-east dictatorship to prove our resolve to act, how about we invade a dictatorship that actually poses a real threat? We'd get rid of some nasty sonovabitches, and we'd prove our resolve.

Re:Ummm...

[Rightcoast]

It's amazing what can be accomplished with repetition of language...These kids are among the poorest 25% of our population, yet are going to vote overwhelingly Republican.
Quite an amazing feat, accomplished year after year.

Re:Ummm...

[EugeneK]

Is that the same MEK as the neoconservatives-in-the-US-Congress-supported group of Marxist terrorists? Any thorough War on Terror needs to support terrorists sooner or later. You need terrorists to fight terror, you see.

Re: Ummm...

[surfsalot]

As far as I know, there have been -no- cases tried (except for the very recent one, in which, the case was tried because the soldier was suspected of being a spy...) for adultry. Ms Lewinsky made no ploy that Clinton was abusing his power. It might be noted that Clinton admited that he did not want to go to war, and didn't have his family get him out and then pretend he -did- serve. In my opinion, thats a whole lot better than covering it up after you got out of serving anyhoww and attempt to maintain your position... along with this he didn't attack persons with military history. Clinton's "I didn't inhale" comment was a statement of his generation (60's)... bush did inhale, or snort, however you want to put it. Clinton also didn't drive drunk into a hedge... And while getting head may cause some issues in the domestic front, it doesn't endanger anyone else (I am assuming that, from what I've seen of Hillary, it did endanger himself! :) Do I think Kerry is the right man for the job? I don't know, I only know 2 things... bush is not the man for the job, and kerry makes a damn good caricature... it makes my choice easier.

Re:Ummm...

[intnsred]

only to be surprised by just how many of my fellow servicemen are not Bush supporters at all.

And I think it's safe to say that there are significant elements of the top brass that are not Bush/Rumsfeld supporters.

This was most clearly illustrated when Gen. Shinseki, the-then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was forced into retirement for publicly stating that he would need "hundreds of thousands" of troops to secure Iraq.

When the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff job opened up -- the wet dream job for every general in the military -- no general stepped forward. Rumsfeld had to call one of his cronies out of retirement to take the position. That speaks volumes! The generals know that Bush/Rumsfeld threw out the "Powell Doctrine" so painfully learned after Vietnam, and they don't like it.

but I question OIF being part of the GWOT myself.

Why, just because "Operation Iraqi Freedom"[sic] was planned well before 9/11?

Do people forget Bush's hand-picked Treasury Secretary, lifelong Republican Paul O'Neill -- one of the highest officials in the US gov't, going on TV on "60 Minutes" showing a map of Iraq carved up among American and British/western oil companies and saying that the map was made long before 9/11 and the plan to attack Iraq started as soon as Bush took office?

My question is: why do you have questions?! The answer is as solid as you're going to get!

Re:Ummm...

[lspd]

I'd have to say from my own experience (former military officer talking here) that the percentage is probably higher than they think. I can count on one hand the number of real liberal democrats I encountered during all my years in the military.

Officers and enlisted are two very different demographics. In my experience, as a corporal in the mechanized infantry, the vast majority of the people I knew were Democrats. It may seem like the military is overwhelmingly Republican, but it's simply the result of 99% of the enlisted men and women not voting.

Re: Ummm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is any kind of military training or service a prerequisite to being president? No.

Did he have to go through basic training upon his inauguration? No.

Does he have to mutter that military oath that new recruits recite? No. Just some words about upholding the Constitution.

Does he get ribbons, medals or awards? Does he wear a uniform? Does he have a military rank? No.

Is he a subject of the military legal system? No.

Does he get a discharge when his office term is complete? No.

He is A CIVILIAN that just happens to get to tell the military what to do or not do. He is not part of or a subject of their regimented system. You're the idiot if you don't realize that.

Re:Ummm...

[intnsred]

I'm a disabled vet and I can't figure out the same thing.

I mean, I think it's fairly clear that Bush used huge political influence to avoid Vietnam. The former Texas Lt. Gov. from the 70s has recently publicly stated that he pulled strings to get Bush and other sons of the elite into the Nat'l Guard.

Bush obviously didn't want to go to Vietnam (I can't blame him), since he checked the box saying he didn't want to go overseas.

It's also clear that Bush was a deserter. After his father sent him away from Texas for being a drunk he went missing from the Nat'l Guard for a year. You mean to tell me that some of the supposedly hundreds of people that served with him are not stepping forward to claim the thousands of dollars in rewards for saying they served with Bush?! That's insane.

Then there's the military records. I remember how fat my 201 file was and how the military loved to keep paperwork. There's no way those records are "lost" -- I think it's far more likely that Bush cronies cleaned house on his records.

I also think it's fairly likely that Kerry worked an angle to get 3 purple hearts and to get out of Vietnam. Hell, I would not have wanted to go to Vietnam. But then again, when an explosion went off and Kerry got a butt-ful of rice, dirt, and some shrapnel, do we honestly think he was knew about that explosion or was calculating how it would impact on him? When he was grazed with a bullet, do we really think he was volunteering to be shot "just a little" so he could get the hell out of Vietnam and go back home?

Hell no. He got lucky. He got lucky repeatedly, saw an angle to get out, and got the hell out. I can't say as I blame him -- he did his time and played by the rules.

But that's a helluva lot more than you can say about Bush's "service"[sic]. The fact that this deserter organizes campaigns to criticize Kerry or McCain says a lot about his lack of character.

Re: Ummm...

[J. T. MacLeod]

At a time when there was a surplus of pilots?

Makes sense to me.

Re:Ummm...

[paganizer]

Hah.
Someone mod parent up +5 funny.
had me going for a minute there, thought you were serious.
Bush is more likely to be lynched by the military than voted for.
If there was another republican candidate they probably would vote republican.
Ex-Military. work there. friends, family are there.

Re: Ummm...

[d34thm0nk3y]

In general I would say that anybody that ALWAYS votes one way or the other isn't really doing so based on the facts of the issue.

Re: Ummm...

[d34thm0nk3y]

Most people are morons period. Though I could see how something like the army could attract a relatively higher proportion...

Re:Ummm...

[d34thm0nk3y]

Many junior soldiers/sailors won't come out and say it for fear of publicly disagreeing with the brass

Which is exactly why it is so goddamned important to ensure these people a secret ballot....

heh, not to drag us back to the topic at hand....

Re: Ummm...

[Master of Transhuman]

You are the idiot.

Read this:

The Commander-in-Chief a Civilian Officer .--Is the Commander-in- Chiefship a military or civilian office in the contemplation of the Constitution? Unquestionably the latter. An opinion by a New York surrogate deals adequately, though not authoritatively, with the subject: ''The President receives his compensation for his services, rendered as Chief Executive of the Nation, not for the individual parts of his duties. No part of his compensation is paid from sums appropriated for the military or naval forces; and it is equally clear under the Constitution that the President's duties as Commander in Chief represents only a part of duties ex officio as Chief Executive [Article II, sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution] and that the latter's office is a civil office. [Article II, section 1 of the Constitution; vol. 91, Cong. Rec. 4910-4916; Beard, The Republic (1943) pp. 100-103.] The President does not enlist in, and he is not inducted or drafted into, the armed forces. Nor, is he subject to court-martial or other military discipline. On the contrary, Article II, section 4 of the Constitution provides that 'The President, [Vice President] and All Civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.' . . . The last two War Presidents, President Wilson and President Roosevelt, both clearly recognized the civilian nature of the President's position as Commander in Chief. President Roosevelt, in his Navy Day Campaign speech at Shibe Park, Philadelphia, on October 27, 1944, pronounced this principle as follows:--'It was due to no accident and no oversight that the framers of our Constitution put the command of our armed forces under civilian authority. It is the duty of the Commander in Chief to appoint the Secretaries of War and Navy and the Chiefs of Staff.' It is also to be noted that the Secretary of War, who is the regularly constituted organ of the President for the administration of the military establishment of the Nation, has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be merely a civilian officer, not in military service. (United States v. Burns, 79 U.S. 246 (1871)). On the general principle of civilian supremacy over the military, by virtue of the Constitution, it has recently been said: 'The supremacy of the civil over the military is one of our great heritages.' Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 324 U.S. 833 (1945), 14 L.W. 4205 at page 4210.'' 193

Re: Ummm...

[Master of Transhuman]

High-school diploma? Most people in the population get that - even if it means nothing via-a-vis intelligence.

Aptitude test? Right, that really shows someone is smart. Administer the same test to civilians and see what happens.

BTW, you know who runs Federal prisons? Correctional officers who couldn't pass the aptitude test to become a cop - and ex-military guys who were downsized because they weren't smart enough to advance in the military.

Boot camp? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! It takes no brains at all to get through boot camp. Not only that, the smarter you are, the LESS likely you are to get through boot camp, because you can see how much of it is bullshit and brainwashing and it becomes emotionally hard to deal with it.

I haven't been in the military since 1970, but at that time, yes, the vast majority of people in the military - who were in voluntarily for multiple terms of enlistment, not drafted or enlisted for one term to avoid the draft, as I did - were in fact morons.

And despite propaganda to the contrary about the "new, upgraded Army", what I see coming out of Iraq are the same morons that existed in Vietnam.
Both officers and NCOs and enlisted.

Anybody who joins a military and allows himself to be placed in harm's way for reasons other than his own and at someone else's option is by definition a moron.

And yes, between 1967 and 1970, I was a moron.

But I learned and didn't stay one.

Re: Ummm...

[javiercero]

You tell them, thos poor rat bastards who died face down in the mud in 'Nam had it easy, poor Bush had to deal with his rich lineage that kept him out of harms way and even getting in the way of his own will! Gad, I must vote for him them... the horrors he had to endure sipping those margaritas in the TANG while those less privileged than him had to go and fight.

Re: Ummm...

[karniv0re]

Much of the ill will regarding clinton came from his history. He stated that he "loathed the military", and subsequently dodged the draft.

Now, I can understand this sentiment. However, what I can't understand is why no one seems to mind that Dick Cheney dodged the draft in about every way he could think of, and W joined the Guard which was a good way to dodge it back in the day. Yet they are so highly revered for their "patriotism." Mmmmkaaay.

Military members can be prosecuted under the UCMJ for adultery alone; sexual indiscretions with a subordinate (ie. Miss Lewinsky) are even worse.

The funny thing about this (though it's not funny at all) is that when I was deployed (with the guard), this shit went on ALL THE TIME. The girls would give it up willingly, and in return? Would you believe an E-4 with 2 years in service got promoted to E-5 before one of my good friends who had 12 years in service? All because she had a nice rack. I can only speak for my deployment, but I have no doubt in my mind that this shit is military-wide. Clinton would have fit right in as an officer, or better yet, a warrant officer.

we haven't even started talking about his politics.

Yeah, like that horrible economy we had. Whew. And that deficit. And my God, those awful humanitarian projects... and on and on and on.

Not that I love Clinton, but W has done the one thing he couldn't do: Make Clinton look good.

Re:Ummm...

[javiercero]

Bloody hell no! Oi!

Re: Ummm...

[intnsred]

Bush's service in the TANG was no assurance of not going to Vietnam.

Give me a break. The guy scored 25 (out of 100) on his pilot aptitude test. The average to get to be a pilot was in the 70s. Yet somehow, he mysteriously became a pilot in the TANG at a time when everyone and their brother was trying to get into the Nat'l Guard.

Ben Barnes, who was the Lt. Gov. of TX at that time admits he gave Bush and other sons of the TX elite special treatment (if you don't like that link, search Google and you'll find many references of Barnes' admission) to avoid Vietnam.

When you have connections like that, do you really think there was a chance George Bush was going to be sent into harm's way?

Re: Ummm...

[bluGill]

Everyone missunderstands me. There are legitimate questions about his service record, and I don't want to gloss over them. However there is nothing he can do about others who have the connections to get him a better position.

I can't blame them either, if one of my loved ones had to serve I'd do my best to make sure that service was someplace where they were unlike to be killed. Someone has to die in war, thats the reality, but I'd prefer it to not be anyone I know. (of course it would be better if there was no war at all)

Re: Ummm...

[J. T. MacLeod]

Oh, yes, very clever indeed, since there was no bloody way he was going ANYWAY.

Furthermore, no military in their right minds would send the son of an active, highly ranked politician who also happened to have a position in the UN into a warfield.

But you obviously have a desire to believe that GWB was skipping "duty". What good will facts or logic do?

Re: Ummm...

[YrWrstNtmr]

...to avoid going to Vietnam as a grunt. He wanted to be a pilot (just like his daddy). If the TX ANG was his best shot at being a pilot, that's what he went for. If he had a burning desire to be a submarine officer, he would have done something else.

Was his score acceptable for entrance into pilot trining? Yes. Low, but acceptable. Please show any specific persons, with higher scores, who were bumped so Bush could become a pilot.

Was the specific jet he flew (F-102) in service in Vietnam? Yes. Being withdrawn, due to the general drawdown in SEA, but still active.

Was the specific unit he was assigned to active in Vietnam? Again, yes.

As I said...that specific duty (F-102 pilot) in that specific unit (147th FIG) was no assurance of not going.

Have you ever been in the military? Do you know how unit moves happen? Are you familiar with the assignment process?
Once you're inside the machine (Bush/Kerry/McCain), it's much harder to avoid going somewhere you don't want than if you stay outside completely (Clinton/Cheney/Edwards)

Only about 1/3 of the active duty military at the time actually served time in SEA.

Re: Ummm...

[J. T. MacLeod]

Yes, his family connections allowed him to obtain a situation that required minimal duty, and he was AWOL even from that.

a) Obtaining that position required no string pulling of any kind.
b) Since when was national guard duty something to be looked down upon, even in wartime? Furthermore, by the time he even made it past training, the war was dying down.
c) As established above, he wasn't AWOL.

Re:Ummm...

[jrexilius]

That the middle-east is an important area to control is true. That it is the US that is most interested in this is false.

We draw less then 15% (give or take some fluctations in the last couple of years) of our oil from that region and its importance to us lies more in stopping the likes of Hitler or the Soviets from having the resources they would need to be more of a threat to us then our own oil needs. The other importance is in keeping our primary trading partners (EU, Japan) well supplied with cheaper oil so that they can continue to trade goods with us (a more direct and larger effect on our economy then the 15% oil import).

To say that the EU governments behave purely out of high-mindedness, brotherly love, and altruism when dealing with the middle east is either naive or a lie. To say that we care only about the middle east for oil for ourselves is either ill-informed or a lie. To say that our attempt to respond to terrorist attacks and threats is all about oil, or your faulty notions of oil, is either completely removed from reality or, you guessed it, a lie.

Re: Ummm...

[sp0rk173]

If it's better there's no war at all, then why do you support the war machine? Not to flame, i'm just curious. If there were a draft re-instated, i would run as fast as i could to a neutral country. I don't believe in war, so i'm not going to fight war. In my eyes, war only perpetuates itself and the only way to stop it is to not participate in it. Call me an idealist hippy, but that's how i feel. I could rant about the whole economy that's built around war to make it even more embedded into our culture and system, but I won't. Just tell my why you support war, if you feel that there shouldn't be any war at all.

Re: Ummm...

[bluGill]

Why I support war... That depends on the war. If we are talking about Vietnam or Iraq (note that I also don't support the positions of the anti-Iraq war if can figure that out. I don't think I can explain it in under 10,000 words so I'm not gonna type it) I don't support it. If we are talking about the American revolution or similar I support it. War is sometimes the only answer to tyrany.

I support war and armies for much the same reason I support police. I don't want police keeping track of me at all, but something needs to be done about murderers and thieves. Its a compromise, evil people exist so I have to deal with them.

Re:Ummm...

[I_redwolf]

Bush is respected by almost all the current and former US military personnel I know, in distinct contrast to Bill Clinton. When I was in the service, many officers and enlisted so despised Clinton that they refused to display any certificates, awards, decorations, citations, etc with his signature on them. Despite the prohibition on using "contemptuous words" against the commander-in-chief and elected officials, most guys were (privately) very frank about how they felt... The level of enmity was really remarkable.

I know of whole Brigades that dislike Bush. Do you have any evidence to support these claims. As you, I'm also prior service. Including a couple of units that were disbanded by Bush, including my own. I'm also a member of the Veterans guild, no one there likes Bush. Any evidence to support these claims would be great.

Re: Ummm...

[sp0rk173]

evil people exist so I have to deal with them.

I have a problem with that statement. Evil is a very relative term. To radical Islamics, we're evil. To many in the west, radical Islamics are evil. I believe that if we want to survive as a global society, we'll have to come to a compromise between the "evil" people and the "good" people. There will always be people and culture that exist with views that clash extremely with ours, and killing them will result in nothing but more evidence for their cause and the cause of others like them. Our country wasn't founded on war and bloodshed, it was founded on compromise and pragmatic humanist thought. We need to expand the domestic compassion that we harbor for all citizens and start applying it to the entire globe. All humans were created equal, NOT just those in the US. All humans deserve the right to believe what they want to believe, NOT just those in the US and other countries that agree with us. All humans deserve the right to live, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, not just those in the US. Compromise isn't as exciting as war, but in war someone loses. It's only a matter of time before it's us, on our own soil.

Re: Ummm...

[bluGill]

Thats a completely different type of evil. Yes Muslims are evil and all that, but on a completely different level.

Most people would agree that murder is evil no matter who does it, and in who's name they do it.

Re: Ummm...

[sp0rk173]

I agree. This is why I'm against war.

What pissed off the military last time...

[MyNameIsFred]

I know several people in the military, who were absolutely enraged with the last election because their absentee ballots were'nt counted. See this for example. They were far more angry that their vote was usurped, then they were concerned about someone seeing their vote.

Re:What pissed off the military last time...

[Basehart]

"I know several people in the military, who were absolutely enraged with the last election"

Eeek, that's waaay too scary. People in the military getting enraged over votes!

Re:What pissed off the military last time...

[kalidasa]

Ah, but the point is, if they vote for the "wrong" candidate, Omega will see that, and discretely discard their votes before they are transmitted to the polling place. So you see, this is quite possibly as bad as an absentee ballot not being counted. The fact that the motive force behind it is the party you support, while the previous incident was due to the party you don't support, is irrelevant.

Re:What pissed off the military last time...

[surprise_audit]

The interesting thing is that the military have all the tools required to keep their votes secure. They could place armed guards around the ballot boxes out in the field, and provide an armed escort on their own transports to deliver the boxes to a polling station at the Pentagon... There are personnel moving around all the time, so the movement of the boxes wouldn't require much in the way of special treatment. The only irregularity necessary would be having the troops vote a day or two in advance so that anyone out on patrol would be covered.

Or have I missed something vital??

Re:What pissed off the military last time...

[kruczkowski]

It's not just military, there is quite a large popluation of americans living overseas that have little with the military and vote absontee

Re:What pissed off the military last time...

[surprise_audit]

Yes, agreed. But the whole article specifically refers to the military, and tells about how their votes may be collected by a third party. It just seems wrong to me that it would even be thought necessary to engage a third party, especially if that third party is somehow able to review and possibly discard a portion of the vote.

The grandparent poster gave a link to fraudfactor.com, which asserts that military absentee votes were discarded due to not having postmarks. Having an armed escort deliver the ballots to a place where they can be properly postmarked would go a long way towards fixing that issue. No third party required.

Re:What pissed off the military last time...

[cain]

FraudFactor.com is a very partisan site. This link you give just states that Gore/Lieberman tried to discount military ballots, but they do not cite any evidence. It even says "more information to come," but hasn't been updated for 4 years. Do you have links to more reputable sites? Sites which actually reference the events?

Re:What pissed off the military last time...

[cain]

I found a reference for you. (Albeit from a lefty source, rather than a right). Still partisan, but a little less shrill and I think a little more believeable.

The Nation link

"Same thing with those infamous military ballots: On Friday the GOP trotted out Bob Dole to a rally demanding that undated overseas ballots be counted, when days earlier Joe Lieberman had called for the same thing, and when Palm Beach election officials were turning up only a fraction of the discarded military ballots claimed by the GOP. There was so little basis to the claim of widespread military disfranchisement that by Saturday night Bush's lawyers had withdrawn his suit."

Re:What pissed off the military last time...

[Attitude Adjuster]

Strange - you seem to have forgotten to mention the scandal of Republican operatives "fixing" incorrectly filled in absentee ballots (those for Bush, of course). Why is that? That, and the 60's-style deliberate disenfranchisement of African American voters, are the most fundamental fraud issues of the 2000 election.

Here is a break down of just some of the absentee votes that were, but should not have been counted for Bush in Florida 2000... (Source: democrats.com)

• Absentee ballots that could not be read by voting machines, but were illegally "duplicated" by county election officials: 10,000 (60% Bush?)
• Absentee ballots cast in Seminole and Martin counties by Republican voters following the criminal alteration of defective ballot applications by Republican operatives: 5,000 (99% Bush)
• Overseas military ballots that were not legal, but were counted because of massive pressure from the Bush campaign: 680 (71% Bush)

This absentee ballot stuff wasn't a secret at the time - it was reported in real news (well, you wouldn't hear it from Fox or the Washington Times, but thats where sad wackos go to hide from reality) until mid 2001.

Here is a CNN article on the Seminole county absentee ballot application form alterations. The Republican operatives were allowed to alter incorrectly filled-out/printed applications (by Reps), but Democrat operatives were not allowed to do the same to applications by Democrats.

If your feeling rich you can purchase this July 2001 NYT article entitled "EXAMINING THE VOTE; How Bush Took Florida: Mining the Overseas Absentee Vote" by D Barstow and Don Van Natta.

Then there is this nice and very recent example of (gasp) Republican cheating with absentee ballots in (gasp) Florida: A fine Greg Palast article.

Re:What pissed off the military last time...

[Anonymous Cowtard]

Question: Do you have any positive evidence to your assumption that Omega will discard their votes other than knowing the president of said company has a different political viewpoint than yourself?

It's become extremely said that people in your position have convinced themselves that they only way they will lose in November is massive corruption (on a level that would be impossible to hide I might add). Couldn't it be possible that there's just more people who don't believe as yourself? And the argument of "But I don't know a single person who's voting for Bush" doesn't hold water. Know why? Because it's obvious from your post that you would only hang around with people who share your political opinions since you already assume that anyone pro-Republican is a corrupt, baby-eating monster.

Re:What pissed off the military last time...

[demachina]

So you are saying because they are mad about last time it would be better if their votes disappeared in to a partisan corporation which can change their votes at will, presumably to support the Republicans, Republicans running both this company and the Pentagon that hired them.

I'm sorry but this really looks like the final round in the on going efforts by the Department of Defense to put a huge pool of millions of votes under their control so they can fix the election and keep themselves in power. They will no doubt rationalize it as good for America because they have most definitely convinced themselves they are the only ones qualified to run America and to defend it from its enemies. It is their patriotic duty to insure they stay in power. If they let someone else take power the "War on Terrorism" is lost.

You recall the Pentagon was going to try internet voting until critics pointed out their system was ripe for fraud. They dutifully killed it and quietly waited until just before the election to roll out a new scheme that is just as ripe for fraud so it will take a miracle for critics to rally enough support to kill it before the election. Its the same strategy they used for Total Information Awareness. Kill it when public outrage gained momentum and quietly reconstitute it under new names below everyone's radar.

Absentee military ballots are an exceptionally good way to rig a presidential election that is hanging in the balance on a handful of very close swing states. They are a pool of ballots evenly distributed across the country so someone intent on fraud can flip votes in just the critical states swing states in one easy location.

Omega is certainly a great name for this company. Omega being the last letter in the Greek alphabet and defined in Webster's:

2. The last; the end; hence, death.

Perhaps a sick Republican like John Poindexter picked the name since this is part of the plan to put an finally finish off the nuisance that is free elections and Democracy in the U.S. Everything will work so much more smoothly if the people in charge can pick the leaders themselves and cut the American people out of the loop.

From CNN:

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

George W. Bush, December 2000

Much truth is said in gest.

Re:What pissed off the military last time...

[justins]

I know several people in the military, who were absolutely enraged with the last election because their absentee ballots were'nt counted.

How outraged were they about some soldiers' absentee ballots being used fraudulently? I suppose the people in the military outraged about that would be a different group of people... sad, isn't it?

Re:What pissed off the military last time...

[zCyl]

This confirms my decision to invest in the tinfoil and hat industries. I should be happily retired by early November.

Not everything that sounds like a conspiracy is necessarilly fabricated. These types of things DO happen regularly, believe it or not, and its the responsibility of a free society to not stick its head in the sand when they occur.

Re:What pissed off the military last time...

[kalidasa]

Nope, I was providing a hypothetical. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Actually, I know plenty of Republicans. Most of them aren't very sophisticated politically, but some of them are, and are bright, and simply have different priorities than I have.

Re:What pissed off the military last time...

[neitzsche]

You seem to be suggesting that not having anonymity would not affect a person's vote. IN THE MILITARY! With your boss, and boss' boss, and boss' boss' boss... all holding guns/tanks/bombs, certain to check your answers to make sure you toe the line (to perpetuate their revenue?!)

"Ooooh....looks like Joe voted Democrat. Joe, report for minesweeping duty. Here's a fork."

How could you NOT be concerned about someone seeing your vote, ESPECIALLY in the millitary!?

The reactions here are scary

[Anonymous Coward]

Everytime a story like this is posted I'm scared by the way people react.
Obviously without even bothering to read the article people tell us that everyone who is concerned about these kinds of things should take of their tin foil heads.
They tell us that 6 000$ isn't much, as if this was the point.
And they immediately start the old Democrats vs. Republicans game. For every instance of republican foul play I will post at least one instance of the democrats doing something wrong. As if it did matter who deprived voter of their basic rights.

Now take into account that this story is not the only reason to be concerned (Diebold anyone?) and what has hapend in Florida during the last Presidential election and it should be clear to anyone that there is reason to be concerned.

The moment the outcome of an election is decided not by the people voting but by judges who decide if counting the votes one side wants to count or counting the votes the other side wants to count something is wrong and needs fixing. Seeing what is happening lately in the US this situation seems far from solved, on the contrary seems to get worse.

What will happen to a country whose citizens don't seem to be concerned if their most basic right is undermined?

Paranoia

[jkonrad]

Let's try not to make too much of the fact that organizations outside the gov't having to do with voting (Diebold, Omega, et al) support conservatives moreso than liberals, politically.

This is largely because the right is much more pro-business and -capitalism than the left, who are typically seen to increasingly resent the wealth builders and creators with the more wealth they build and create.

If some organization seemed intent on taxing and regulating me out of business, I probably wouldn't support them much, either.

What party a business supports in a moot point, regardless. If someone is paranoid enough to have visions of conspiracy by right-supporting businesses, then the same untrustworthiness must therefore be assumed about all left-supporing organizations as well. While I don't understand paranoia all that well, maybe in the minds of those so afflicted, these two opposing conspiracies would cancel each other out...?

There's no substitute for thinking.

Re:Paranoia

[0x0d0a]

As regards voting -- yes, I think it is quite reasonable to be suspicious about a combination of (a) an exploitable voting system and (b) clearly partisian links from an operator. And that goes for the right *or* the left -- if the Demms could get away with ballot box fraud, you bet your ass that they'd do it in a second as well. But at the moment, the concern happens to be companies with ties to the Republicans.

Re:Paranoia

[mOdQuArK!]

This is largely because the right is much more pro-business and -capitalism than the left, who are typically seen to increasingly resent the wealth builders and creators with the more wealth they build and create.

You've got an inflated idea of who the "wealth builders" and "creators" are. Big clue: the guys who are building & creating _aren't_ the guys at the top. Those guys just cause money to be shifted around and provide a figurehead for the organization, but in terms of actually providing goods or services to consumers, they aren't that important (except that if they cause money to be shifted to the _wrong_ places, they can destroy a company).

Unfortunately, most people in those positions seem to have such an inflated ego, they come to believe that _they_ are doing all the real work in the company, and _they_ are the most important person in the company, and the company wouldn't be able to do anything productive without them, so _they_ should be compensated several thousand times more than anyone else, even though they're not doing any more work than anyone else. And when some political demagogue comes along and strokes their ego for them, they'll hand out the cash in wads, just to preserve their I'm-so-important reality.

NOTE: My complaints are only targeted toward large organizations, where the highly hierarchical command structure separates "management" from the workers, and necessitates a large bureaucracy in-between. Most of the _real_ productivity in our society gets performed by individuals & small businesses, where the organization is so small, that to be successful the people "in charge" _have_ to get their hands dirty & who therefore have a much more accurate idea of their own self-worth to the organization.

Great Research!!!

[Futurepower(R)]

Excellent research. Mod parent up!!

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

You trust the NYT as unbiased? Idiot!

[Slashamatic]

All media is biased to a lesser or greater extent, it is impossible to edit without showing bias. We buy papers that carry a viewpoint that is compatible with ours whether we agree with the viewpoint or not. However, we have a choice in what media we watch. This isn't the Soviet Union.

When you don't have choice, for example, in the way that vote is taken and passed, then that is something to worry about. Nobody forces you to buy the NYT or to watch Fox.

Re:You trust the NYT as unbiased? Idiot!

[Bull999999]

It's sad when one of the most insightful comment in this thread doesn't get modded "insightful". There are too many people on Slashdot that bash others for being biased, yet they counter them with equally biased facts.

I live overseas

[kruczkowski]

I live overseas and inside the envelope there is a letter that says you have the option to fax in your ballot, but you must sign the waver about the secret ballot. BUT you can mail the thing in and you have the secret option.

It's quite obvious that it's not some crazy conspiracy, if you fax in you must also incude your voter card (or else someone will do a DoS attack) The mail in letter is unique and could be easly identified as a fourge.

Wow you are stupid or young. Often the same thing

[SmallFurryCreature]

McCarty witch hunts. Where the United States goverment hunted people for their political believes. So yes there is a very good reason in americas own recent history for having your vote be secret.

Now go and read a book.

Forget conspiricy - it's amateur hour

[dbIII]

It's simply a case of contractors who can't fulfil the key requirements of the contract.

If these incompetants don't get replaced, then those who hired them may have to have their sources of lobbying money examined - and criminal charges of bribery applied where appropriate.

Re:Your losing because most peopel have no clue.

[Zorilla]

It seems that most people are wholy ignorant of the most basic concepts of our government, and yet bitch about loosing freedoms.

Some of us are better at some things than others, I guess. :)

Absentee ballots rigged in Florida

[intnsred]

BBC investigative reporter Greg Palast is one person who originally turned up the bogus use of military absentee ballots in Florida in the 2000 election.

You'd think they would have straightened it out, but as this story reports the absentee process in Florida if anything has gotten worse!

Now, four years later and the process is not fixed, and is arguably worse than ever. Accidental or planned?

Re:Absentee ballots rigged in Florida

[goldspider]

You should really get your information from more credible sources than an irate liberal conspiracy-theory rag whose articles are nothing more than speculation published as fact.

If I were you, I wouldn't hold out for much objectivity or unbiased analysis from a group that still believes the 2000 election was 'stolen'.

Re:Absentee ballots rigged in Florida

[intnsred]

Gee, would you rather the information came from Democratic Congressman? Would that make it any more relevant? How about if the same information came from the award-winning journalist's own web site? Would that make it "more true"?

Somehow I suspect that your gripe about the information isn't with the source of the information, it is instead the facts cited in the information.

Re:Absentee ballots rigged in Florida

[intnsred]

Watching from Switzerland I was amazed to see the majority of the people in a country vote for one individual and that individual lose the election.

That's the way the US Constitution works -- it's happened 3 times since the US Civil War (1860s). The people don't select the president, the states elect the president through an obscure undemocratic process known as the "Electoral College."

The US is not a democracy, it's a republic. Worse, it's a republic written with a Constitution whose wealthy authors were openly scared of democracy. Those authors inserted many checks against the democratic will.

If you want to read up on this, the "Federalist Papers," a series of pro/con arguments written by the authors of the document in the 1780s during the debate over the then-proposed Constitution, clearly points this out.

IMHO what's more telling than the history of this is the fact that today, in the 21st Century -- and after what happened in the 2000 election -- there is no serious effort to eliminate the Electoral College. That is highly indicative of a broken system.

Re:Absentee ballots rigged in Florida

[BgJonson79]

>>[T]here is no serious effort to eliminate the Electoral College. That is highly indicative of a broken system.

Or, because 2/3 of the country won't vote to change it? I'd also argue it's not undemocratic, as the representatives are simply voting for who their state voted for. Very few states give their representatives the power to choose on their own.

Besides, is there really a reason to change it? It forces candidates to go to the small, toss-up states (like NH) instead of just going for the big-cheese states (NY or CA). Do you really want the outright tyranny of the majority? After all, in a democracy, it's the minority that needs to be looked after, not the majority.

I believe some smart gentleman also said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

I recommend the George Will article at the end of the Newsweek with the fat cells on the cover, that came out a week and a half ago, for some pretty good reasoning behind why the electoral college should stay. But hey, if you don't like it, there are provisions in the Const. for changing it. Good luck to you!

Re:Absentee ballots rigged in Florida

[intnsred]

I'd also argue it's not undemocratic, as the representatives are simply voting for who their state voted for. Very few states give their representatives the power to choose on their own.

Those two sentences contradict each other. In one, you're saying it's democratic. But in the other, you're saying that some states allow their electors to vote for anyone they want to vote for, regardless of what the people want. That's not democratic and is a recipe for disaster.

It forces candidates to go to the small, toss-up states (like NH) instead of just going for the big-cheese states (NY or CA).

I live in NH. Why should my vote count more than anyone else's? NH is one of the "swing states" that will literally decide the election, but we're not representative of the country as a whole.

Imagine yourself a Republican voter in NY. NY has many times the population of NH. Yet would your vote matter in NY? No. NY will go for Kerry. In effect, millions of people will be disenfranchised in NY (ditto for many other states).

Yet I in NH am privileged because we're a swing state -- my vote counts for several NY or California votes. That is not democratic, and it is not fair.

Do you really want the outright tyranny of the majority?

I'm familiar with the history of that term, but it's a loaded, biased, term which is designed to frighten and scare people; it also tries justify elitism and disproportionate electoral power.

Yes, I want the majority to rule -- I want a straight direct election for president. How come direct elections are okay for Congress but not for the president?

We have civil liberties (well, what's left of them at least) to protect minorities, but in choosing our gov't, the majority should rule in a fair one-person, one-vote election.

Re:Absentee ballots rigged in Florida

[BgJonson79]

I live in NH, too... and I don't like the swing state label because the increased political ads are going to drive me insane for the next two months, and I hardly even watch TV! (If you don't mind me asking, which rough area are you in... always interested to see where Slashdotters live in NH. Me, I'm on the seacoast.)

Now, in response to your post: I don't believe my sentances are contradictory. If I elect someone to make decisions for me, I think it's still democratic. And I'm also not going to tell other states how to run their electoral college process. That'd be undemocratic ;-)

I'd also add that the electoral college fits into the grand scheme of balance the FF strove for. The President's power is supposed to be offset by the frequently and completely democratically elected House, the protected-from-the-popular-passion-of-the-people Senate (with their six-year terms), and the appointed Judiciary (but you know all this, of course). Why is congress directly elected and not the president? Because they're different entities with different jobs and responsibilites.

If we all elect the president directly, why would there be a need for the Congress? Why would candidates pay attention to small states? At least in this case, they're forced to stop by Wyoming or VT instead of ignoring it.

Sorry for the babbeling, incoherent statements. Have a good one.

Anonymous voting is a right?

[DanielMarkham]

I didn't remember reading anywhere that anonymous voting is a right.

In fact, didn't it used to be that people would walk into a voting booth, announce their name and address, and who they voted for? The secret ballot has been a fairly recent thing in politics.

As for me, I don't have a problem announcing who I vote for. After all, it is the one thing that I do that affects the country the most, why would I want to hide when I do it? Who should I be afraid of?

Re:Anonymous voting is a right?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Who should I be afraid of?

Your employer/union boss/abusive spouse who votes the other way.

Re:Anonymous voting is a right?

[Anonymous Coward]

As for me, I don't have a problem announcing who I vote for. After all, it is the one thing that I do that affects the country the most, why would I want to hide when I do it? Who should I be afraid of?

You might not have anyone to be afraid of, but not everyone can say the same. Prior to the institution of the secret ballot, it was not uncommon for employers to coerce their employees to vote in a particular way.

Re:Anonymous voting is a right?

[Kphrak]

As for me, I don't have a problem announcing who I vote for. After all, it is the one thing that I do that affects the country the most, why would I want to hide when I do it? Who should I be afraid of?

The crime boss who's quietly told you that he's going to "rub ya out" if you don't vote for Mr. Funnymoney, his favorite candidate.

Secret voting was first implemented in New Zealand or Australia, depending on who you talk to (in the modern world; Athens had secret ballots in ancient times), and it was considered a good enough idea that we adopted it. Studies in Civics, an 1897 civics textbook found on Project Gutenberg, has a mention of this practice; it hadn't been implemented in many places in the US at that time, but the author was an enthusiastic proponent of the idea. The main value of this is that votes cannot be bought or extorted, because there's no guarantee that the voter did what you asked.

The disadvantage of secrecy is that multiple votes by the same individual are possible; steps must be taken to prevent that.

Conspiracy Theory

[Morbid_Angel666]

So .. um .. people can't support a political party and still do their job without prejudice? I'd like to believe that at least some of us have a shred of decency. I'm curious that if intead this company's CEO had donated money to the Green Party would it have made front page news? Probably if perhaps the tinfoil hat has a hole in it ....

Re:Conspiracy Theory

[kryptkpr]

So .. um .. people can't support a political party and still do their job without prejudice?

prejudice.. I don't think that word means what you think it means..

I don't know how it works in the USA, but I've worked several elections up here in Canada. Not only are people wearing any party symbols not allowed in the voting room, any past or present member of a political party is not allowed to work in the room, period.

It has nothing to do with prejudice (as there's no pre-judging going on. when you donate your time/money to a political party, you are their supporter, plain and simple), and everything to do with removing any possible conflict of interest.

These people have to handle your ballots for fucks sakes, they should NOT be allowed to support ANY party if you want an honest election. Then again, since when has the USA had honest elections..

Re:Conspiracy Theory

[Firethorn]

And I have trouble believing that you can truly find enough verified neutral people to count the votes. Thus you have three people doing the count. The "neutral" counter, a democrat representative, and a republican representative. Minor parties can send representatives too, but they generally don't have the manpower.

And what's your definition of "party member"? I'm nominally a republican (I get to vote in the republican primary), but I haven't ever volunteered time, been paid by, or even given money to the republican party. Am I disqualified from being a counter?

Re:Conspiracy Theory

[kryptkpr]

Canada's system (the one I'm used to) is a little different from yours.

We have *1* person (the DRO) who is actually allowed to open the voting box, pull out the votes, unfold them, read them, and put them into the envelope to be sent off. This person has sworn an oath of secrecy and of integrity, and is not allowed to be a present or past member of any political party.

There is an additional person (the Poll Clerk) who marks the votes with a checkmark onto a huge sheet of grid paper. IIRC, this person also cannot be a member of any party.

The other people at the counting table (up to 2 representatives per party per poll) are just there to make sure the counting is fair... they obviously belong to a party.

So finding neutral people to count the votes really isn't that hard.. and the people scrutinising the vote need not be neutral.

Voting for a party does not make you a "member" in this sense (it makes you a supporter), because you cannot be asked by gouvernment you who you've voted for in the past (at least in Canada). Contributing time or money on the other hand, does make you a supporter, and thus makes you ineligible to count votes.

Re:Conspiracy Theory

[hikerhat]

people can't support a political party and still do their job without prejudice...

Some can, some can't. I think psychologist would tell you most people can't completely divorce themselves from their ideology. The problem is there's no way to know who's who. The decent person knows this.

The solution for the decent person is to make sure the process is open to public scrutiny at all times. If the enitre process isn't open to public review they, by definition, have no decency.

Re:Conspiracy Theory

[GodfatherofSoul]

The issue with Diebold isn't as simplistic as you just made it sound. The fact that the CEO said he'd do everything he could to reelect Bush and the fact that a back-door for altering vote counts has been discovered should be the biggest story in the nation. I was absolutely horrified when I found this out through BugTraq. Greg Palast, one of the few honest journalists left out there, has reported on this as well. Chris Matthews had one of the discoverers (I think it was she) demonstrate the back-door on "Hardball" one night.

Re:Conspiracy Theory

[Firethorn]

Actually, it sounds just about identical. The vote counter is the only one to touch the ballots, the others are just to verify

Re:ROFL

[nsayer]

That's more or less how it works in Canada. By doing the counting at each individual polling place, the individual bits of paper really only matter once, and matter only in a context where their numbers are manageable. Once the numbers at a particular polling place are agreed upon by everyone who bothered to stay, then the election is merely all about insuring that those numbers are all correct all the way up the line. Heck, at that point I could even see using the Internet as a cheap and convenient means of transmitting those numbers to the state election organizing body, so long as they also get written down on paper with autographs and kept secure somewhere at the county level.

But how is your system not still an anonymous vote? Does the ballot have your name or some other piece of information traceable to you on it? Does someone watch you place the "X"? Does someone look at your completed ballot before you stuff it in the box? If the answers to all of those questions are "no," then there is no reason at all to be troubled. If the answers to any of those questions are "yes," then I'd have to wonder why that sort of thing is necessary, except for the obvious reason.

Not only for troops !

[uss_valiant]

From the ETS instructions:

The Federal Voting Assistance Program's (FVAP's) Electronic Transmission Service (ETS) enables local election officials to transmit and receive election materials via fax or email to/from Uniformed Services members and overseas citizens.

That's great! As an American who resides abroad I should have applied for an absentee ballot at least 60 days before the election, which was yesterday. With the Electronic Transmission Service (ETS) I still may vote!
So a service that was made to get more republican votes (see comments on percentage of u.s. army pro republican voters) enables me to vote against Bush [sic]. :)

Re:Not only for troops !

[base3]

As a veteran, I have no problem enfranchsing the armed forces. As a citizen, I have an interest in being able to believe that votes were counted accurately, and that soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines voted without coercion.

While I would hope that commanders who would coerce their charges into voting one way or another are few, why even open the possibility when technical means exist for those in the field or at sea to cast their votes secretly and with significantly less possibility of tampering?

Why Fight em?

[mister_doodlebuggs]

From Omega careers page: Web Developer Job Description: Web developer will be responsible for the design, development and testing of cutting edge Internet based solutions. The employee will assist in needs analysis, and planning and development of implementation strategies. The development will also require evaluation of third party products/component technologies, on-site testing and installations, and testing and debugging of applications. Knowledge of C++ and Cold Fusion

Re:They donate both sides - parent LIES!!!!

[uss_valiant]

Can't moderate this discussion because of my own comments. Please mod parent down, he can't have read his parent post or he's just a troll. See the other reply to my parents post, mod it up.
The "reference" (the url) of grandparent doesn't work, probably it's cut, but this one works:
http://www.campaignmoney.com/finance.asp?type=io&c %20ycle=04&criteria=OMEGA+TECNOLOGIES+INCORPORATED %2F

Soap, ballot, ...

[Destoo]

Anyone can explain that quote, and who that guy was?
I found info about Jury Nullification on this page, but that's about it.

There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt

thanks!

Re:Soap, ballot, ...

[eakerin]

Here you go:

Soap Box - Get our and tell people about your belief, and or problem. Soap boxes used to be made of wood, and were great portable stepping stools. So when people went out to talk about things to a large group, they'd use a soap box.

Ballot Box - Get out and vote. Elect the people you believe in to represent you.

Jury Box - We have the ability to choose not to enforce a law using a jury trial. This is in the case where congress passes a law, and a jury of people decide that it's not something they will enforce, even if the accused did break that law.

Ammo Box - When all else fails, take the government back by force. This one only works in the case where most the entire country believes the same as you, and the government is not listening at all. Not to be used lightly, as it definatly means people will die. You might remember this being used once before, The Civil War.

Newspapers are supposed to be biased

[djeca]

Let me rephrase that... newspapers are a fundamental part of the political process, so of course they have an editorial line. But with regard to facts, they are also subject to a public fact-checking process, so any newspaper or other news source which constantly distorts the facts will quickly become known as such and lose credibility.

Omega Technologies are not subject to public fact-checking, so they should not be used.

Re:They donate both sides - parent LIES!!!!

[kalidasa]

Yeah, you tried real hard there, buddy. First, you did read the part of my post where I pointed out that the name of the company is mis-spelled in the database - every time. Second, you didn't notice that /. added a space to the link, did you? So you say I lie? No, I don't lie - you just don't READ!!!

Re:They donate both sides - parent LIES!!!!

[kalidasa]

Thanks. The reference works fine, as long as you account for the fact that /. adds a space to long references. Try this one, which is what I typed (without the interpolated space due to /code). There are a huge number of trolls in any political discussion, of every persuasion. I find it interesting, though, that I was accused of lying by someone who obviously didn't read my post all the way through.

Re:ROFL

[bluGill]

Back in 2000 we had an election where the winner got less votes than the looser[1], yet there were no riots! I have to say that I don't see much difference.

Over here bosses are concerned about the bottom line too. However there have been instances in history where someone (normally not the boss, but some criminal who wanted his friend to be sherif) did care who was elected and was willing to use force. There have also be cases in third world countries where someone has cared enough to force people to vote their way.

Note that the vulnerabilities were are talking about are theoretical. They can happen so we want them eliminated as best we can. So far as we know these companies are not committing fraud. They could however, and we want them to have that opportunity.

[1]By a process set out 200+ years ago the popular vote is enough to win, the idea being to protect those smaller states who will have smaller populations but still have valid concerns. There is a lot of debate about if this is a good idea.

Okay.

[mindstrm]

First, the technical aspects of this.. the voter secrecy parts, should be taken seriously.

Secondly.. it's kind of funny to hear complaints about them not being "non partisan".

Just about every American I know feels strongly about one party or the other, and given how US politics work, that makes sense.
Are we trying to say that those who are making voting systems and services should not be entitled to political opinion?

Of course not...

What they SHOULD have to do is keep their services as transparent and watertight as possible, open to external scrutiny, so nobody can scream "election fraud"

Not News for Nerds

[Dolphinzilla]

This story sucks - all it does is make us go against each other - The story had barely enough content to make it a Slashdot story at all. Please refrain from posting this crap in the future or I will trade in my Karma and leave.....

Guess what PC in Canada stands for?

[mindaktiviti]

That's right! Progressive Conservative! And they're our equivalent to the Republican party here in Canada.

Re:They donate both sides - apology!!!!

[DisKurzion]

I apologize for the lies segment. I'll admit an oversight on my part. I was trolling, and I see that now. To make up for it, I will present what little logic I can form while mildly hung over. (The error is consistent across multiple sites, so it's likely whats-her-face fucked up, not them)

6 Grand is a lot, but not much from a CEO of a company. I give 500 to the GOP every year. I earn less than 40 grand, so 6 grand is not an unreasonable level of a personal contribution from an exec earning 5, 10 times what I make.

Second, check some other sites for campain donations.

Open Secrets.org has a detailed comparison of many actual company donations. It also has stats to show which party many organizations fall partial to. (an ironic sidenote: even though slashdot typically hates the RIAA/MPAA, and the general political preference is democrat, the RIAA/MPAA give more money to dems than republicans. A LOT more)

Almost any company is biased one way or another (wheter or not they actually donate money). So the only logical solution i can see is either open-source the app or have the NSA do it. But we don't all trust the NSA do we?

Typical..!!

[mantera]

Let's not forget that many, if not most of those soldiers already have many good reasons to be furiously angry at Bush and his administration. I think I can safely speculate on what their vote would've been.

Re:They donate both sides - parent LIES!!!!

[blargorama]

quote: "So I smell a rat..." And I see a moron. The misspelling was clearly referenced in his post. Another typical right wing jackoff getting his panties in a bunch without bothering to even READ what the other person said. How typical.

Article gives a different number

[Phelan]

The only study quoted i.e. the "Duke Study" "Over the past quarter century, elite military officers have largely abandoned political neutrality and have become partisan Republicans," the study announced, noting that 64 percent of those surveyed identified themselves that way." All other numbers quoted in the article are opinions of people in the military that probably is more favorable to their own stereotype.

64% is a far cry from 80%, also please not this study was done before Iraq, stop-loss orders, soldiers not being paid on time, being on duty for longer tours than usual, veterans benefits being cut aswell as hazard pay and reserves/national guard being used like regular troops.

I'd imagine that this development may sway some voters.

Re:It must suck knowing Kerry is going to lose

[rosie_bhjp]

everyone = anyone who doesn't believe the fox news party line.

It's been going on a long time: 24 wars in 59 yrs.

[Futurepower(R)]

No partisan interest here. It's been going on a long time: 24 wars since WW2. Creating fear so rich people can profit.

However, you seem to say that the 3 movies and 35 recently published books in this article are all wrong, even though they written by all kinds of people, Republicans, Democrats, generals, former government leaders, a Pulitzer Prize winner, political commentators, editorial writers, environmental organizations, and members of the public: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

Name ONE statement that is in error. I'll investigate (again), and if you are correct, I will change it.

Most people don't know that the situation in Iraq began in the 50's, when hidden elements of the U.S. government overthrew a democratically elected president of Iran (Mossadegh) because he wanted to reduce the profits of U.S. and British oil companies doing business in Iran. The U.S. government supported a very weak man, the Shah of Iran, who became very violent toward his own citizens. Eventually, people in Iran overthrew the Shah. The U.S. government's actions de-stabilized the country and encouraged the violence that came after. The U.S. government supported Iraq against Iran, supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein at a very high profit for the rich owners of U.S. weapons companies. The Bush family has long owned part of a company that owns weapons companies. Cheney was head of Halliburton, a company that profits when there is war, especially since Halliburton was able to arrange a secret, no competitive bid contract.

What do you say about that? Is the university that hosts the documents all wrong?

Obviously, there is too much material for any one article. Should I not discuss the corruption of today because there was corruption in the past?

Webpage... C++?

[Ayanami Rei]

Drop this shit like a hot potato. That itself is reason enough to have less faith in them...

Re:They donate both sides - apology!!!!

[kalidasa]

I'm glad you apologized for that comment, it took guts - and the brains to realize that you were mistaken (at least in this case).

Yes, the RIAA/MPAA give a lot more money to the Democrats - which I find disgusting on the part of the Democrats. Both parties have their favorite ways of violating our rights - that's why, even though (unlike you) I abhor guns, and even think that some guns should be regulated in some ways, I agree with you (from your other postings) that the 2nd Amendment was a very important thing to keep in the Constitution - when the bootjacks come, whether they call themselves Democrats or Republicans, whether it's in 100 years or a 1000 - it'll happen eventually, every great Republic eventually falls to the tyrants, as Polybius and Thucydides and Tacitus teach us - at least there should be some way of resisting them.

I did finally remember the OpenSecrets URL before seeing your posting, and saw the same thing you did. As I'm sure you realize, the OpenSecrets site is very non-partisan, and is professionally done (the board are both Democrats and Republicans). Either the FEC database is to blame, or Ms. Williams is. Now, if Ms. Williams is, either she did it out of ignorance of the name of her own company (which would surprise me; the CEO of my company gets annoyed when people punctuate the name improperly), or she did it to make her affiliation harder to find. We'll be nice and assume that it was the FEC's fault.

The point here isn't that one company is donating some money to one party - its that there's a pattern of companies associated with elections oversight being affiliated with the Republican Party, and there were a LOT of irregularities in Florida - that's what's bothering Democrats. The reason the Democrats (wrongly, in my opinion) challenged those military absentee ballots is because there was some minor evidence of absentee ballots being tampered with by Republican officials, say one or two of them. Bad reason to toss out large numbers of absentee ballots, especially from folks who are risking their lives defending our country, but no different in detail, aside from the obvious emotional distinction, from Republicans having folks stricken from the rolls, supposedly for no longer being residents, whom they know to be active Democrats (I have independent reason to believe these accusations).

As Cokie Roberts said, though (and she's from a prominent Democratic family), in Florida they don't know how to rig an election properly - in Louisiana, they bury their dead shallow so it's easier to dig them up on election day!!! Election irregularities and corruption have been a multi-partisan problem for a long time. So what I'd do is a. have electronic voting provide human-readable/machine-scannable receipts, so both hand recounts and mechanical recounts can be checked against the electronic voting, and for absentee military ballots, use seals and have officers notarize the seals (rather than using fax machines, etc.) If you've got an officer notarizing a seal, you're no less secret than in many small wards, and you'll be able to do sanity checks on the absentee ballot. But, not having been in the military, I don't know how feasible that would be. But certainly I think disenfranchising the military is the ultimate in stupidity - since the most important decisions the President is going to make will effect them directly, they're the ones whose votes are most important to protect. I don't understand why they're all gung-ho to re-elect this administration, since I think an administration capable of a more balanced and internationalist foreign policy would better serve their interests (in other words, one like the previous two administrations, both Clinton and Bush 41), but that's another story.

Weak

[maximilln]

This is such weak data:

Omega President and CEO Patricia Williams has donated $6,600 in this election cycle to the National Republican Congressional Committee and is a member of its Business Advisory Council.

A $6600 donation is a drop in the bucket. A CEO membership on the BAC isn't out of line.

Look, I don't disagree that graft is out of control in our nation, but can the news sources please start providing us with a little bit better social network or money trail maps? It's nothing short of dairy farm stinking suspicious that network and finance maps are given only the weakest cursory mentions.

Re:Weak

[dave420]

It's a conflict of interests. That should be enough to make any decent person walk away. It's incredibly disrespectful and inappropriate for them to continue.

Re:ROFL

[TheLink]

You don't see much difference? You from the US of A?

The Indians are likely to riot if they suspect the candidate with fewer votes won. Or if something fishy was going on.

The US folk will just switch channels and watch MTV or Superbowl or Fox News.

I was not saying the Indians are a more peaceable folk. I'm implying they are prone to rioting BUT their election system works better, and the evidence is that there was minimal bloodshed due to the elections.

The vulnerabilities theoretical? Are you sure this built-in vote rigging backdoor is theoretical? Are the two of them liars? If they are telling the truth then it sure isn't theoretical, it just hasn't been used in a live/production environment yet.

And to those who moderated my grandparent post flamebait: "why do my eyes hurt", "coz you've never used them before".

Partisan does not equal criminal

[roccomaglio]

Okay, so Patricia Williams President and CEO of Omega Technologies is a republican supporter. Are you saying that this makes her a criminal willing to commit voter fraud? I think this is a huge leap. First she would have to decide that democracy is ridiculous and the people should not pick their leader, that the leader should be chosen for the people. Secondly, she would have to decide to risk going to jail and having her business destroyed to disenfranchise soldiers that are dying for this country. Thirdly, she would have to somehow do this without any of the people who work for Omega Technologies blowing the whistle. I don't know Patricia Williams. Do you have any proof she is willing to commit the criminal acts that are being assumed she will commit?

Re:Partisan does not equal criminal

[base3]

Actually, I don't find it unreasonable that those involved in the voting process not be allowed to make campaign contributions or actively support a party. Like civil servants and the armed forces (q.v. Hatch Act--not the copyright one he's trying to ram through now), their political activity should be limited by statute.

Re:Partisan does not equal criminal

[Zcipher]

I wish I knew the source, but I will point you to the best definition of "Conflict of Interests" I've ever seen:

The appearance of a Conflict of Interests is a Conflict of Interests

Re:Partisan does not equal criminal

[dave420]

It's a conflict of interests. She shouldn't be in a position where she could intefere. That reason alone means she should decline any involvement.

Re:That article is such crap.

[intnsred]

Sorry, that article is nothing more than a "he stole the election" rehash.

Did you actually read the article? The story is about an election official in Florida counting/rigging her own election, and that election was held in 2004.

The only information in the article relating to the 2000 election was to cite that the election official was controversial during that election too.

Informative? Only if your of the tin foil hat group.

Let's see. A story by an award-winning investigative British reporter, the same reporter who uncovered the "use databases to keep 90K+ Floridians from voting" in the 2000 election (thus, he has a deep background in US and Florida elections), writes a story about election corruption still going on in Florida in 2004. Yet that somehow is not informative and is the stuff of a "tin foil hat group?"

Your bias is so strong it's illogical.

First rule : If its not a commoningly know link, ie a news source many people know of, trust, or etc then its probably a hack site.

The source cited was a news aggregator site. They simply reprinted the article. See the other posts of this article where I cited the same article on Congress.org and the journalist's own web site.

Re:ROFL

[TheLink]

There's a serial number on the ballot paper (each ballot paper is also stamped and signed to help prevent forgery).

The people at the voting station know who took which ballot paper.

AFAIK the serial number isn't stripped at the counting point so the counters or observers could record the serial number and the vote.

Therefore it isn't anonymous.

Not a big deal to me.

Probably politicians over here are more interested in finding out whether they've pissed off too many of the female voters for the amount of male voters they gained with a policy, same goes for the statistics by race, ethnicity, age etc.

I'd be more upset if I voted and my vote was changed. It's fine if the politicians know I was upset with them.

If an evil and violent Dictator (e.g. Saddam) or Gov ever came into power there wouldn't be much point trying to vote would there? You might be better off voting with your feet and try to leave the country. If you're forced to vote, well it's quite obvious who you'd have to vote for right?

So I'm still not sure what's the big deal about anonymous voting. The only thing I can see is if you somehow need to keep your vote secret from your spouse (or other family members) just to keep the peace ;). A nice to have feature.

But I doubt most people's bosses or family members get to see the detailed statistics with the current voting system, so the votes are anonymous with respect to that.

I just want someone new in office.

[Futurepower(R)]

I don't want them in jail. I just want someone new in office.

She's operating under conflict of interest.

[Futurepower(R)]

You missed the point. She's operating under conflict of interest. The money and her position with the Republicans is only supporting evidence.

--
Bush's education improvements were fraud

How else...

[Sfing_ter]

How otherwise is King George gonna get his fightin' men n' wimmin ta vote fer him, 'cuz we dun turned the corner. :)

Re:ROFL

[bluGill]

Sigh, the old definitions... I suppose my useage was slightly off. My point is that while there are way to rig any system, so far as we know nobody has actually tried. Our complaints are something that could happen, not something that has happened.

Why not...

[Bull999999]

Why didn't a Kerry supporter donate $7000 to get the job?

Re:ROFL

[Bull999999]

India had their elections this year, the then incumbent lost, but there were no significant riots - so I figure most Indians were satisfied with the results. Otherwise I'm sure heads will literally roll.

Becase in the USA, riots are reserves for sporting events because that's deemed more important for many.

Conflicts of Interest

[Dakisha]

I'm just a Brit - Watching from overseas, looking at the US through the eyes of the internet. Of course, this means I don't see it through the eyes of big-media, aside from prehaps the BBC once in a while, and if I remember - the channel 4 news occasionally.

So from where I am looking, I see peoples rights being taken away daily, contradictions in every-day aspects of American life, conflicts of interest and unacceptable terms lain down in everything from voting to laws. And I have to ask - why is nothing being done about it?

Really... I'm not trolling, or trying to 'diss' America. I used to love the idea of coming over to live in America, it was one of my childhood dreams - land of the free - these days, I'm far too concerned about the state of democracy over there. And yet I see almost nothing being done about it.

Over here, if we stood up on the news and said 'There is a clear conflict of interest, due to the link between the companys doing the voting machines, and the current prime minister' - I honestly believe something would be done about it, and very quickly. And for people to be arrested for simply protesting, on the scale/obsurdity that appears to be happening over there, would provoke outrage, and instant responses - along with extreme critisism, both from the media, and the opposition party.

So how to finish up this post? Good question - It's just as much a rant on 'why is america not doing something?' as 'why is this happening in the first place?', and voting is only a small part of what seems to be an institutional corruption. I can only hope that at some point in the future, a president will have the foresight to look forward and put in place, restrictions and clauses to further protect the American people. Your constitution is apparently no longer up to the job, and your democracy has been truely corrupted. (This is not a troll/flamebait post)

Re:Conflicts of Interest

[stinkpad]

We do understand "no disrespect intended". And, while I am sure it may seem bad, we DO have a history of dealing with exactly this type of problem, after giving reasonable tolerance and diplomatic channels a chance. Remember these words? . . . ... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. . . . . . It is still a enjoyable read, and a warning to those who think that a few miltant peoples cannot sucsessfully take on a well armed, professionally trained world superpower, which is exactly what England was at the time, and we, it's subjects. History does have a way of repeating itself.

And you, sir, are ignorant...

[anvilmark]

...but that's nothing to be embarrassed about, ignorance is curable.

The "McCarthy witch hunts" were NOT witch hunts (read the end). McCarthy's basic argument was "should we have people who are communists (many self admitted) in sensitive positions within our government?"

He was not only right, but underestimated the extent of soviet infiltration, as the release of the Venona Project transcripts now reveal (summary here).

Now go and read a book.

Re:And you, sir, are ignorant...

[nietzsche_freak]

The "McCarthy witch hunts" [thefreedictionary.com] were NOT witch hunts (read the end). McCarthy's basic argument was "should we have people who are communists (many self admitted) in sensitive positions within our government?" He was not only right, but underestimated the extent of soviet infiltration, as the release of the Venona Project [nsa.gov] transcripts now reveal (summary here [thefreedictionary.com]).

Yeah, McCarthy was a Great American Hero, all right--where would we be today if he hadn't blacklisted one of the greatest threats to our nation, subversive Communist propagandist Charlie Chaplin?

Re:And you, sir, are ignorant...

[Unordained]

... no, he was not right.

There's a significant difference between allowing communists (self-admitted, reported, suspected, or just disliked by others) in sensitive positions and allowing known spies in sensitive positions. The best option is to have no clue about someone's political views, to avoid fallacious thinking. That's why employers are required to disregard religion, ethnic background, political view, etc. when hiring -- none of it matters. What does matter is the integrity of the individual, which can only be judged on a per-case basis.

The secret ballot helps preserve this distinction, but we must be ever vigilant against this sort of profiling. A communist is not a traitor, and neither is a republican. A more effective spy would pose as a moderate, and might even be a moderate -- who said money can't buy allegiance, regardless of political conviction?

Re:And you, sir, are ignorant...

[darkmeridian]

Communism is a political point of view. To officially ostracize anyone because of their politics is always the first-step towards tyranny. It presupposes that being Communist (or rather Socialist) makes you more likely to be a spy, but this is not necessarily true. Look at the spies that caused America the most damage: Robert Ames, Greenglass, Hannsen. They are all trueblue Americans. They make the best spies.

Its because those who know, do nothing.

[rebelcool]

A sad trend in the US for the last couple of decades has been that of "those who know better, do nothing". Or more recently, "those who know better do nothing but bitch on the internet"

Obviously, voting is something that should be left in the hands of the people and not some corporation with who knows what agenda.

But where are the volunteers to step up and implement and open and robust voting system?

Of all the people here who bitch about "our rights being thrown away" - how many of them have even volunteered to work in a polling place, much less talked with their state's election board members?

The boards know that all these systems SUCK! But nobody has tried to give them a reasonable alternative.

Rather than bitch on the internet, why doesn't anyone here, with the expertise and obsessive desire for openness, do something about it?

Our rights are being thrown away because you're too lazy to get out of your chair and stop it. Join an activist organization. Lobby your congresspeople. Make a nuisance of yourself with them!

Moaning on the internet does nothing.

Yes... if you're chronologically challenged.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some rather entertaining quotes from the sites you linked: ...(The Abu Nidal Organization) relocated to Iraq in December 1998, where the group maintains a presence.

Has not staged a major attack against Western targets since the late 1980s.

Sounds like a definite clear and present danger to the security and welfare of the United States today. Oh yeah.

IMO, it's stretching things quite a bit to use this as a justification for the invasion of Iraq, given that the "War on Terror" doesn't seem to apply to most domestic/regional terrorists in the world, or about states which employ domestic terrorism as a means of control.

wow.

[TheLink]

Someone found a feature with a popular US electronic voting system (1000 such systems in place), a feature that seems to be _intentionally_ put in for vote tampering and your conclusion is it's just "something that could happen and not something that has happened".

What can I say, but "wow" and "sorry for the interruption, your normal programming will resume shortly".

Right

[aldeng]

They clearly haven't already done their duty, so let's take away some of their basic rights. Next, let's strong arm them into not talking when they get home! Wait...

Re:It's been going on a long time: 24 wars in 59 y

[Danse]

I think he means that there is corruption among Democrats today, just as there is among Republicans, and both should be covered. I understand that the Republicans are currently running the show, and therefore it seems natural to focus on them, but in the interests of your site being taken more seriously, you may want to include information about the corruption on both sides of the aisle. A bit more like how http://www.factcheck.org covers both sides.

Stupid...

[NEOtaku17]

Why does it surprize anyone that large businesses usually like the Republican Party better? They usually want less restrictions on business and lower taxes. People should know by now just about any large business like that will be more Republican leaning.

Re:Bush never said "I loath the military"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, instead Bush deserted the military for over a year. He then went on to earn the recognition of a drunk driving conviction. Next he would found an oil company which did business with the Bin Laden family. In August of 2001 he would ignore a daily briefing pointing out that one of the Bin Ladens was planning to highjack airplanes and fly them into American building. When it finally happens, over a month later, upon being informed of most devestating attack by foreign forces on the U.S. mainland, Bush sits there for. He just sits there. For 7 and a half minutes. He just sits there. He doesn't call out the Air Force. He doesn't authorize shooting down the enemy. He just sits there. In recent times he has entered the United States of America into a war of choice against the nation of Iraq. This war of choice has a main beneficiary: Dick Cheney's Halliburton Corporation. Cheney's Halliburton Corp. has taken over $17 Billion dollars in no-bid contracts and counting. This is U.S. taxpayer money Bush is shuttling into a private corporation without any oversight. Speaking of taxes, I love a guy who can give the majority of his tax cuts to the richest 1% of Americans (people who make over $250,000 every year) while cutting funding to schooling, healthcare, social security, the environment, scientific research, and military pay.

Iraq and strategy

[crucini]

I agree that the US invaded Iraq for strategic reasons, and to scare other Middle East rulers. I'm not sure if Bush knows this - he may actually believe some of the rationales he put forward. The papers at Project for a New American Century show that this strategic dimension was brewing long before Bush took any interest in it.

If the US keeps a long-term presence in Iraq, this also reduces US dependence on Israel and Saudi. Having US troops in Saudi was Osama's main grievance. Saudi is "holy"; Iraq is not.

I think the US is also deliberately using Iraq as a "roach motel" for Islamic militants. From what I've read, Saddam had very tight border security, which the US totally disabled, allowing foreign fighters to enter Iraq freely. It's a lot easier to kill these guys in Iraq than to catch them in terrorist actions. I don't know if that counts as "strategic" or "tactical".

The difference of course

[Aexia]

is that Clinton opposed the Vietnam War and didn't want to serve.

Bush supported the Vietnam War but didn't want to serve. That's what makes him a Chickenhawk.

The military ballots being challenged were

[Aexia]

duplicate ballots (two ballots had been sent out to many overseas personennel)
ballots postmarked *after* the election
unsigned ballots

I don't see any legitimate reason for any of those to have been counted.

Ever heard of the Hatch Act?

[Aexia]

People, even in private companies, dealing in any way with voting should be held to the same standard and limitations.

Lol, you show exactly what is wrong with america

[SmallFurryCreature]

You are free in america to have any political believe that you want, just as long as it is capatalist. Yup that is freedom alright.

Russian reporters at the Bush vs Clinton elections found themselves right at home. Two candidates answering no deep questions differing only on minor points. Exactly like the elections in the old ussr.

Read up on some real democracies like they exist in europe where we got every party from left to right. Then come back.

encryption?

[HobophobE]

Couldn't they encrypt the ballots first, somehow, and then upon receipt to the proper authorities, they'd be decrypted?

your argument actually supports capitalism.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Russian reporters at the Bush vs Clinton elections found themselves right at home. Two candidates answering no deep questions differing only on minor points. Exactly like the elections in the old ussr."

your argument actually supports capitalism. If our presidental elections are just a show between two nearly identical candidates just like the old USSR then why are we not all in the gulag??? The striking differance between the old USSR and the now USA is capitalism....now i will let you guess which one has the most freedomes, the greatest prosperity and the longest history of stability.

hey i got a book for you to read "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith

I mean it is almost like an "invisable hand" is retaining our freedoms in the USA.

by the way "Gulag" by Anne Applebaum is a book you should read as well.

stendec@gmail.com

Bush, Clinton, and the military

[commodoresloat]

First, this country was founded upon a healthy suspicion of the military institution, and even resisted having a standing army until relatively recently. I don't know the context of Clinton having said that - in fact, this is the first I've heard about it - but he did not act like he loathed the military in office. He sent troops to Kosovo, he had Iraq bombed every week or two, he sent troops to Haiti, and to a dozen other smaller conflicts. His only major embarrassment militarily was Somalia, which was a mess left to him by Bush I. He tried to take out OBL on several different occasions while most republicans were still longing to keep fighting the cold war. I'm no Clinton fan but this perception of him as anti-military is offbase, even though it is a wildly popular theory among Republicans.

As for Bush, he's certainly responsible for far more members of the American military dying in an unnecessary war that was waged based on a pack of lies. He not only ditched military service himself, but for almost a year after starting the Iraq war he refused to visit the families of soldiers who died in his war. He's been slashing benefits to Veterans, and he even took money that several US veterans had won in a lawsuit against Saddam Hussein for stuff that happened during Desert Storm -- the money should have been paid to the vets and their families, and Bush instead diverted it to the Iraqi "reconstruction." Bush has been slapping the face of American troops and veterans over and over again. It is disgraceful and insulting to those who risk their lives to serve their country. His attempt to paint Kerry as a wimp is a further slap in the face to everyone who has ever served in the military.

Re:Bush never said "I loath the military"

[subsailor]

I not only think it should be allowed, I sometimes loathe the military myself.

And I'm in it, too.

Those who resented/hated Clinton in the military were generally like much of the military...uninformed idiots who latched on to the "he's gonna let them fags in the service" idea.

Sadly there are a lot of people in the military these days that are of the same caliber as those who gave us Abu Ghraib. Shallow-minded redneck macho nitwits who see the world in the same simpleton terms Bush does..."you are either with us or with the terrorists" attitudes. They are by and large bigots, racists, homophobes, and generally losers. I see it every day, and am thankful that I'm in a community (submarine engineering) where there is at least less of a moron factor. But, as I said, I see the pond scum of the military on a daily basis, and it's scary they even think of giving some of these guys any kind of authority or weapons.

Osama's complaints justified (but not violence)

[Futurepower(R)]

Also, consider this: In the Michael Moore movie Fahrenheit 9/11, George W. Bush can be seen holding hands with a man known to his family as "Bandar Bush", and known in Saudi Arabia as "Prince Bandar". (In Saudi Arabia, it is common for men to hold hands. Doubters: Please, that scene in the movie is taken from network TV footage; no one has contested or questioned it.) Prince Bandar is one of the regime to which Osama bin Laden objects.

George W. Bush had a failing oil company, someone in the Saudi ruling regime bought the company, and Mr. Bush then made a profit. Ask yourself, why would a rich Saudi want to invest in a failing oil company in Texas? The answer is that the Saudis wanted access to top officials in the U.S. government.

So, in this point, Osama bin Laden is correct. I don't agree that violence is the way to resolve this problem, but the U.S. government is preventing needed political change in Saudi Arabia. Think about this. How would you feel if someone from another country was interfering with the U.S. political process?

2) Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda object to the support from the U.S. government for Israeli violence toward Palestinians. I once calculated that the support is about $910 for every Jewish man, woman, and child each year. When you see helicopters firing at Palestinians on the ground, those helicopters came from your tax dollars. Did you intend to get in the middle of a 3,200-year-old conflict (on and off) between the family of Abraham and the surrounding people? Open your billfold right now. What dollars do you see there that you would be willing to give to kill Palestinians you don't know? Yes, there is a serious problem there, but did you intend to get involved? Do you see any advantage for anyone in you getting involved? One famous Israeli government official said that the U.S. government money was like "gasoline on a fire".

So Osama bin Laden is correct in this second complaint, also. Again, I don't agree that violence is the way to resolve this problem, but the U.S. government is, in fact, giving money that Israelis use to buy U.S.-made weapons that are used to kill Arabs. Not surprisingly, Arabs don't like being killed. Not surprisingly, some of them object by becoming violent themselves.

This particular U.S. government corruption works through embezzling. The weapons companies could never arrange a deal to get your tax dollars directly from the U.S. government, the would risk prison; the U.S. government is not that corrupt. Instead, the money goes to the Israeli government first, and back to the weapons manufacturers, who make an easy profit, since the Israelis cannot spend the money elsewhere. If you read the books in the article, Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government, you will see that George W. Bush's family is invested in weapons makers. Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, another company that makes more profit when there is violence. This involvement may make them prefer violent means.

George W. Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, attended a meeting of The Carlyle Group investors on the days around 9/11 that was also attended by a brother of Osama bin Laden. The Carlyle Group is a weapons manufacturer holding company.

That's unprecedented conflict of interest.

Poor Skippy

[Pacorro]

That's one more thing he cannot do while in the US Army

Re:That article is such crap.

[BgJonson79]

Doesn't corruption require malice? Have you ever been to Florida? The people are stupid. Really, really stupid (not the transplants, the home-growns). I'm surprised that many people in Florida can read the names of the people on the ballots.

Ridiculous

[weedenbc]

It was a REPUBLICAN administration who ALLOWED (and possibly orchestrated) the 9/11 attack on this country

That statement alone makes your entire comment completely worthless. Lets see - they allow an attack that kills thousands of people and destroys trillions in capital and infrastructure for what possible reason? And don't give me the oil excuse. I don't care how big your tinfoil hat is no sane person can possible believe that the Bush administration perpetrated 9/11 to simply make some more oil money for their cronies.

No comment!

[Slashamatic]

Interestingly, I saw a news program calles "No comment", the idea being that it presented footage directly without editorializing or analysis. However, it is still 'edited', the cameraman selects what to photograph, and simply with the zoom lens, it is possible to select between showing a few noisy demonstrators in isolation or to show them as a threatening mob. The program editor selects what footage to use and what to ignore.

The same with a newspaper and it is even more intersting there as it is possible to suggest linkages by the use of layout. However the bias of newspapers (and many TV channels) is fairly obvious and you can select what you want. The problem is when there is no choice.

Would anyone really feel that handing their vote to an organisation that expresses a bias possibly against their choice is reasonable?

Disgrunteled conspirator

[GQuon]

I know - I was one.

A terrorist, you mean?

Let me guess:
If you're American, you either were a soldier (in regards to your reference "state terrorism"), or you were an animal rights activist?
Or you're not American.

What made you give up the trade, by the way?

Re:Disgrunteled conspirator

[Master of Transhuman]

Wrong on all suppositions (although I was in the US Army during Vietnam.)

I robbed two banks to get money for weapons and supplies. Since I really didn't know what I was doing (at least as far as bank robbery technigues were concerned), I got caught and did eight years on a nine-year sentence.

While in, I recognized that my plans were not the most efficient way to deal with the problem of the state - at least, not at my level of implementation. I concluded the most efficient way (for me) is to wait for the development of the necessary technology (nanotech, for the most part) and take advantage of that as feasible to achieve a Transhuman state and then deal with the state.

Of course, you never know if some situation may arise where I have no choice but to go back to "Plan A". But it seems unlikely.

Re:Disgrunteled conspirator

[Master of Transhuman]

I'll add one other point.

My plans were very comprehensive. Had I succeeded in getting the equipment and other resources needed for them, I would have made Osama look like Donny Osmond.

Most of the people presently running everything would be dead today (or more likely I would be - or both.)

As my attorney said during my initial incarceration, "We're lucky they stopped you early!"

The FBI found writeups of my plans and didn't know whether to poop or go blind. Neither did my sentencing judge (who by the way was an integral part of the INSLAW scandal and deserves to be in Federal prison himself) who decided to ignore all of it and sentence me strictly on the two bank robberies. Which is why I'm out today instead of doing "life or fifty years".

Why the absentee process at all? Send real stuff.

[aggiefalcon01]

Given all of the problems of the absentee process, why not get rid of it altogether? Take the voting infrastructure sent to public voting places in rural US, and send similar stuff to every overseas base where there are lots of American military & their civilian cohorts (like spouses, families, etc)?

Sure, it'd take the time to fly all of the machines back over to the US, plug in, and send their tally (or however counting is done, bring it here first to prevent foreign observation/hacking), but so what? What's about a day to wait for absentee votes to come in? Let CNN, FNC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc wait before it's sure.