Overseas ISPs Blocked From US Voting Website

No opinion on TFA... by aelbric · 2004-09-21 05:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

...however, I would think the Republicans would be up in arms about this. After all, isn't the military the largest portion of the voting public abroad? And don't they overwhelmingly vote Republican?

--
nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos

Re:No opinion on TFA... by crow · 2004-09-21 05:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

My guess is that the military networks aren't being blocked, but civilian ones are, so the military (Republican) vote will come through fine, but the civilian vote (more Democratic?) won't.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 05:47 · Score: 0

After all, isn't the military the largest portion of the voting public abroad? And don't they overwhelmingly vote Republican?
Well, they used to, for sure. I wouldn't be too surprised if many of those, especially those with extended stays in Iraq, might have changed their minds.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by Cranx · 2004-09-21 05:51 · Score: 1

Ditto on that. I've always heard it was primarily republicans abroad, not democrats. People vacationing out of country and military personnel stationed overseas make up the bulk of U.S. citizens abroad, and they are primarily republican.

Or so I thought.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by chitownIrish · 2004-09-21 05:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe the military doesn't use commercial ISP's?
Re:No opinion on TFA... by commodoresloat · 2004-09-21 06:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

Quite a few of them have. Probably not enough to change the fact that the majority vote republican, but still, quite a few will be voting for Kerry this year. Read Gen. Hackworth's essay in the latest issue of Playboy. Go ahead, read it. Now you can truthfully say you subscribe for the articles :)
Re:No opinion on TFA... by St.+Arbirix · 2004-09-21 06:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sorry, that just doesn't fly. Don't you think the military would be insured their right to vote? How could we expect to keep soldiers fighting for us if they couldn't vote? The Pentagon would never let that happen. Besides, name a *major* ISP in Iraq.

The *only* group that would be affected by this (besides the hackers, of course) would be the U.S. citizens outside the country for personal rather than national reasons. Survey says... mostly Democrat.

Even if the block did affect the military, and assume the military is Republican while all other overseas citizens are Democrat, it's still a big win for the Republicans...
~(military overseas:citizens overseas::1:20)

They're overtly worried about defacement or hijacking of the website. It's not like they're running something assuredly insecure for the server (they're not using IIS). Why would they be so worried?

Furthermore, if this were the way to stop overseas votes this would be it. If there were a website that overseas citizens actually voted on and it was blocked... well, no one would get away with that. Instead they institute a block that merely prevents finding information on casting an overseas vote. This is much safer.

As scared as I am of John Kerry, this really just pisses me off. Those people have a right to vote, and they should probably know how. If this gets picked up by the big media I hope to see a few third parties get propped up (go Badnarik!).

--
Direct away from face when opening.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by justkarl · 2004-09-21 06:20 · Score: 0, Troll

After all, isn't the military the largest portion of the voting public abroad? And don't they overwhelmingly vote Republican?

Are you complaining? Lets not tell G Dub and we'll let the chips fall where they may...without cheating.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by Kingfox · 2004-09-21 06:40 · Score: 2, Informative

My former roommate subscribed for the T&A, and often left his copies lying around. I was often amazed and impressed with the level of journalism present in the magazine. Good hard-hitting interviews with some fairly big names, insightful exposes, and so on.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by dave-tx · 2004-09-21 06:45 · Score: 1

Go ahead, read it. Now you can truthfully say you subscribe for the articles
A dozen years ago, my mother suggested that I subscribe, as she thought the writing was good (how she knew this, I don't even want to know).
Yeah, I subscribed, and no, I didn't read much of it.

--
>> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"
Re:No opinion on TFA... by Frymaster · 2004-09-21 07:14 · Score: 4, Informative

so the military (Republican) vote will come through fine
but is the military vote really republican?
the christian science monitor today is running a story on anti-bush troops in iraq. give it a read -- and remember that the last time the u.s. was involved in a major land war a lot of the vetrans and enlisted men wound up developing strong anti-war stances... john kerry, for instance.

--
2 1337 4 u!
Re:No opinion on TFA... by BandwidthHog · 2004-09-21 07:18 · Score: 1

When I was 12 my mother gave me a subscription for christmas. Her and my aunt took turns paying for it until I left home. She figured if I had a decent nudie magazine being delivered to me, I wouldn't seek out crap like Hustler, et. al.

So I can hopnestly say that even as a teenager, I read it for the articles, and generally didn't look at any of the pictorials until the second or third time through an issue. Which isn't to say I didn't look at them, of course I did! I was a teenage boy. But at least in the 80s, the writing was just that much more appealing.

--

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Re:No opinion on TFA... by lynx_user_abroad · 2004-09-21 07:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

... I would think the Republicans would be up in arms about this.

It worries me no matter who they are predicted to vote for. Consider:
The basis for democracy is that, in exchange for an opportunity to vote freely and fairly, we all agree to accept the result of the election, even if the candidate of our choice does not win the election. Reasonable people are willing to accept this bargain on the basis of the elections being free and fair.
The subtle upshot of this, which many people miss, is that an election can be rigged even without compromising a single vote.
An election is definitively won by a candidate when the number of votes received by a candidate exceeds the number of votes received by his next-nearest competitor plus the margin of error. This was the crux of the problems in Florida in the 2000 election: initially the amount of uncertainty in the vote counts exceeded the difference between Bush and Gore. What ensued was a remedial process to reduse the uncertainty through re-examination of ballots, lawsuits, and ultimately courtroom decisions.
It's interesting to note that no part of this remedial process was under the control of the voters. Clearly, you wouldn't want it to be under the control of anyone, but it explains one strategy for rigging an election under circumstances where it's too risky (or you simply have no means to) swing how the voters will actually vote. Control of the remedial process can be leveraged into control of the election itself, but only if the difference between the two candidates is small enough. Or, put another way, only if the uncertainty is large enough. Anything which raises questions about the freeness and fairness of the election process introduces uncertainty.
So, yes I'm a little concerned that some uber-hacker will root the electronic voting machines and change a few votes, but I'm a lot more concerned that confidence in a whole lot of votes will be lost simply because some uber-hacker could root the machines.
I'd lump this article in the same category. Every time I hear a story about how the election process is being skewed one way or another, I can't help but think it's because someone has already rigged the remedial process in their own favor, and all they need to with the election now is enough people questioning the initial tally.
Which is not to say I think we should stop discussing the vulnerabilities of the system, but rather to point out that we need to do more than just discuss them; we've got to ensure that the vulnerabilities are corrected. We need to send a message (from both sides of the political spectrum) that we believe our candidate can beat the opponent in a fair fight, and we won't stand for any of this crap which makes the election appear to be untrustworthyi, if for no other reason than because it calls into question the legitimacy of an election we clearly won.
I have my favorite candidate. I accept the possibility that the other candidate could win. I am of the opinion that if the wrong candidate gets elected, he could prove very bad for this country, but I don't think either/any candidate is so horrible that the damage couldn't be pretty much undone by electing the 'right' candidate in another 4 years.
But if we wind-up with an untrustable election system (no paper trail electronic voting, Internet vote casting, selectively disenfranchised voters, etc.) we might never see the chance 4 years down the road.
So I'm predicting now that the 2004 race will be close (no brainer) but I'm hoping there won't be another 2000-style fiasco in the vote counting. If there is, I hope we will all look at the resolution process with a very skeptical eye, a critical eye, an eye to the possiblity that the November vote may have already been rigged.
And that holds true no matter who wins in November.

--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by b-baggins · 2004-09-21 08:34 · Score: 1

Because, of course, we all know the only way for these people to cast a ballot is to use the blocked government website. That's why they couldn't vote at all before the internet. Those pesky paper forms they could order via mail or pick up at the embassy never existed. They are a figment of your imagination.

--
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by overunderunderdone · 2004-09-21 08:37 · Score: 4, Informative

but is the military vote really republican?

Read the headline: "A Strident Minority". The same article mentions this statistic: 56% of the military is Republican. One would assume there are some independents that lean (R) as well, and with an over representation of rural southerners in the military there is probably a fair number of Democrats more along the lines of Zell Miller than John Kerry. Sure you can find a statistically significant group to write an article about. Those (maybe 25%?) that opposed the war but end up over there are obviously going to be alienated & further polarized by the experience, thus the "strident" part of the title. Democrats can try to mine this 30-40% for a few extra votes, they have an opening for some counter-intuitive outreach, but the Republicans are still going to work hard to try and get this demographic to the polls in November.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by lynx_user_abroad · 2004-09-21 08:41 · Score: 1

That's why they couldn't vote at all before the internet.

Your point is well made; accessibility to this 'convenience' website does not affect the absentee ballot process, which remains as (in)secure as it has always been.
But I'm reminded of that famous line from the Hackers movie:
The world is not governed by reality, but by the perception of reality.

They are a figment of your imagination.

Precisely.

--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by mre5565 · 2004-09-21 09:45 · Score: 1

The *only* group that would be affected by this (besides the hackers, of course) would be the U.S. citizens outside the country for personal rather than national reasons. Survey says... mostly Democrat.

Why do you assume that civilian Americans outside the USA are mostly Democrats?
Re:No opinion on TFA... by EnronHaliburton2004 · 2004-09-21 11:28 · Score: 2, Informative

Probably because he's been outside the USA.

I've traveled to Europe, Mexico, Canada. I know dozens of people who regularly travel to Singapore, China, Japan, India, Malaysia, South America and a host of other regions.

All of them are far more liberal then I am.

--
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
Re:No opinion on TFA... by goon+america · 2004-09-21 13:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm not sure how pro-Bush I'd be if I was told that I could re-enlist now or be sent directly to Iraq for the remainder of your time in service just to punch the falling re-enlistment numbers up.

Seriously, the blunders in this war that are nice and abstract to the warbloggers willing to stomach them are much more real to someone who experiences them firsthand. Bush's support is highest in rural areas -- those farthest removed from any actual danger of a terrorist attack. Meanwhile, cities like DC and NYC are democratic strongholds.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2004-09-21 17:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

A Military Times survey last December of 933 subscribers, about 30 percent of whom had deployed for the Iraq war, found that 56 percent considered themselves Republican - about the same percentage who approved of Bush's handling of Iraq. Half of those responding were officers, who as a group tend to be more conservative than their enlisted counterparts.

Not sure what "considered themselves Republican" means -- presumably all the registered R's, plus independents who lean strongly that way. Anyway ... From my time in the service (1987-1997) I'd say the numbers are very different for officers and enlisted. The officer corps is strongly conservative and Republican, and becoming more so all the time (and I consider it deeply unhealthy for the nation to have an officer corps that subscribes overwhelmingly to any particular ideology, but that's a matter for another time ...) while enlisted personnel follow roughly the same split (1/3 D, 1/3 R, 1/3 other) as the rest of the country. The article pretty much says this:

Among officers, who represent roughly 15 percent of today's 1.4 million active duty military personnel, there are about eight Republicans for every Democrat, according to a 1999 survey by Duke University political scientist Peter Feaver. Enlisted personnel, however - a disproportionate number of whom are minorities, a population that tends to lean Democratic - are more evenly split. Professor Feaver estimates that about one third of enlisted troops are Republicans, one third Democrats, and the rest independents, with the latter group growing.

This isn't surprising, since officers tend to come from much more priveleged backgrounds than do enlisted personnel.

I also suspect that the numbers vary by service, with the Marines being the most conservative, the Air Force being the most liberal, and the Army and Navy -- largely by virtue of being bigger, and therefore more diverse -- being somewhere in the middle. I'd be interested to see hard numbers on this one of these days.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by overunderunderdone · 2004-09-21 17:35 · Score: 1

That sounds about right. A recent Newsweek poll had the military vote going to Bush by 58%. I don't remember what Kerry got but there was still a decent "undecided" number as well so as I said before you are talking a pretty solid Republican demographic.

I think there is a strong conservative bent even among enlisted personnel, it's just obscured by the countervailing influence of being disproportionately minority. Any group that is 46% minority (according to an NPR report I saw) but that ends up voting the roughly same as the general population is showing a strong conservative bent.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by MillionthMonkey · 2004-09-21 20:03 · Score: 1

...however, I would think the Republicans would be up in arms about this. After all, isn't the military the largest portion of the voting public abroad? And don't they overwhelmingly vote Republican?

This site that's being blocked is intended for civilian expatriates only. Military votes are handled separately.

The military is something like 55% Republican. But civilians living overseas are another matter. According to a Zogby poll, voters with passports favor Kerry over Bush by 55 to 33 percent.

Also, for any expatriates reading this, a proxy server has been set up by the Verified Voting Foundation. Let's see the Pentagon block the proxy.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by WhiplashII · 2004-09-22 02:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, I have lived in both areas, and believe that the difference between large cities and rural areas is more economic than fear of terrorism. In big cities, there tend to be the rich and the poor with very few in between, because the cost of living is so high. There are far fewer rich than poor, and the poor need help to survive when things go wrong - ergo a large Democrat population, which votes for things like social security and government medical care.

In rural America, the difference between rich and poor is a lot smaller, and everybody seems to be about the same as you. The cost of living is FAR lower (not just the difference you read about, I used to live on $10K a year back when I couldn't walk, and I now spend a few times that just on rent in Chicago). In this case, people don't really see a need to give up their money in taxes to provide security for those that hit hard times - because hard times do not affect people as much. This makes them lean towards the Republican viewpoint.

Just my opinion, really, but it does match what I have experienced.

--
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Re:No opinion on TFA... by zantispam · 2004-09-22 02:22 · Score: 1

I am of the opinion that if the wrong candidate gets elected, he could prove very bad for this country, but I don't think either/any candidate is so horrible that the damage couldn't be pretty much undone by electing the 'right' candidate in another 4 years.

How long did it take to rebuild Hiroshima?

--

censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan
Re:No opinion on TFA... by CodeMonkey4Hire · 2004-09-22 03:32 · Score: 1

(Agreeing with you, but attempting to add.)
Don't forget that in rural areas, people tend* to practice a much more conservative form of religion (which aligns better with the Republicans), are anti-abortion, hawkish, pro-NRA. I'd say that they line up pretty good with social issues and foreign affairs as well. Fear of terrorist attack is not what separates them, but rather their opinions of how to handle the problem (kill 'em over there instead of over here).

*To ACs, this indicates that I am generalizing.

--

Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
Re:No opinion on TFA... by CodeMonkey4Hire · 2004-09-22 03:40 · Score: 1

Recently, NPR reported that expats primarily vote Republican, although no one knows the correct numbers for expat population or their political ideology. That being said, there are action groups for both parties trying to get out their vote overseas. After all, the overseas vote helped tip Florida to Bush at the end.

--

Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
Re:No opinion on TFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-22 03:47 · Score: 0

Are you implying that Bush is out to Nuke another country? I may dislike him, but even I wouldn't expect that of him.

Alternatively, your WWII example is pretty irrelevant. Are you presuming that if the US had elected the "correct" president that we wouldn't have nuked Japan? It was a long bitter war with atrocities on both sides. If Japan or Germany had made the bomb first they were prepared to use it on us. In hindsight, nuclear weapons are abominable, but they didn't have hindsight.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by lynx_user_abroad · 2004-09-22 04:44 · Score: 1

How long did it take to rebuild Hiroshima?

Many would argue Hiroshima has yet to be rebuilt. It's at least fair to say the people who died at Hiroshima have yet to be brought back to life.
Your point was?
When the final history of the world is written, it will certainly record Hiroshima as the place where the first nuclear detonation in anger occurred. We should hope that it will record Nagasaki as the place where the final nuclear detonation in anger occurred, and we should work toward that goal. But there's an awful lot of history left ahead of us.
I think it would be naieve to believe that we will be successful in preventing another 'nuclear detonation in anger" from ever occurring again. I see that as a possibility only if some better means of wreaking havok on our enemies becomes available.
That's not an outside possibility. Nukes have the disadvantage that they are hard to build in secret, difficult to test in secret, hard to deliver, relatively unreliable, and the effects aren't easy to control. It's real easy to accidentally nuke your own interests even if you manage to nuke your enemy. And even if you get that far, you've opened the precedent to get nuked in return by those few nations that have them, have tested then, know how to deliver them, etc.
We have much more to fear from things like, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and perhaps even airplanes. An no doubt the future will see the development of other weapons unimaginable to us lowly 21st century humans.
So, if your point was that some things, once broken, can never be put back together again, then your point is taken. If your point was that the election of one candidate over the other can offer certainty to ensure or avoid such an event, then you'll have to offer more proof than you have to date. I'm sure we would all be interested in hearing it.
If your point was that the selection of one candidate over the other could have an influnce on the possibility of the event, either positive or negative, then you argument carries so little weight as to require discarding altogether, for two reasons:
First, you seem to be claiming to predict the future, which deserves skepticism in all cases.
Second, I'd argue your focus is too narrow. It's not only nukes, or even only weapons, which can break things. And there's nothing to guarantee we would even be concious of all the things which are causing things to be "broken" today.
If we remember the Hiroshima tragedy for the lives lost there, aren't we obligated to prevent it from happening again if we can? Do you know how many civilians were killed last month in Sudan? In Haiti. In Texas? None of these resulted from nukes, though, so perhaps they just aren't that important?
When you think about all the things could cause things to get "broken", and all of the things that have caused things to get "broken" in the past, the ones that were caused directly by human action are the only ones we have any control over; and the ones caused by human military action the ones military leaders have the most control over.
In this respect, anyone who promotes a philosophy of "safety by eliminating nukes" is just picking the low hanging fruit.
If a child dies, is it somehow worse that he died "...because of terrorism" than it would be if he died "...because of an earthquake" or "...because of starvation" or "because his parents didn't have health insurance"? Is it somehow less worse that the child was Iraqui, or Sudaneese, rather than American?

--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by Politburo · 2004-09-22 05:07 · Score: 1

I don't think either/any candidate is so horrible that the damage couldn't be pretty much undone by electing the 'right' candidate in another 4 years.

You can't just hit Ctrl-Z and undo Supreme Court appointments.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by lynx_user_abroad · 2004-09-22 06:11 · Score: 1

You can't just hit Ctrl-Z and undo Supreme Court appointments.

Or extensions to Copyright, or Constitutional Amendments banning Marriage among Gays, or a skyrocketing budget deficit. But Justices eventually die, Amemnments can be repealed, a deficit can be paid off and even Copyrights will eventually expire, if we can convince Congress to stop voting extensions. There's going to be a legacy; just a matter of who gets to create it.
The important thing to ensure is that there's a chance to fix things later if we screw-up now.
But did you ever rebuild a kernel and forget to re-run LILO? That's the kind of problem we really need to watch out for. You can't unload a bad module if you can't get a shell prompt.

--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by mre5565 · 2004-09-22 06:21 · Score: 1

Probably because he's been outside the USA.
And I haven't?
I know dozens of people who regularly travel to Singapore, China, Japan, India, Malaysia, South America and a host of other regions. All of them are far more liberal then I am.
Since most of the people I know who travel regularly are co-workers, and since most of those co-workers are tech workers in Bay Area, most of them are far more liberal than I am. I suspect if I were in the banking or defense industries, I'd find such world travellers to be more conservative than I am.
However, a more interesting anecdote would be of the Americans one meets on foreign travel, do they tend to be more liberal than Americans in the USA. My experience is that, if anything, they are more conservative.
While there are degrees of anecdotes, anecdotes are still rather useless. The claim was "survey says". So identify the survey.
Conventional wisdom, which admittedly is often wrong, is that people who travel regularly, tend to have more money than those who do not. And it is a fact that the wealthier tend to be Republican.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by Cranx · 2004-09-22 06:44 · Score: 1

I always thought it was selective ballot counting and oppressing minority voters that won Bush Florida.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by CodeMonkey4Hire · 2004-09-22 09:38 · Score: 1

I hate to say it, but that's 4 years old now. It's time that we turn all our anger and frustration from what happened then into positive energy to unelect Bush. Get everyone you know that hates Bush to vote. Pure and simple.

--

Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
Re:No opinion on TFA... by Cranx · 2004-09-22 09:56 · Score: 1

I think that's part of unelecting him: remembering just how crooked an election it was that got him there in the first place. It all counts, and it all helps.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-22 13:51 · Score: 0

In rural Canada at least, farmers are against over the top gun laws because they pretty much need them.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by Knuckles · 2004-09-22 23:23 · Score: 1

Funnily, the very first sentence in this story is "Though military personnel lean conservative, some vocally support Kerry (...)".

Is it new at /. that even those submitting articles/giving links don't read them? :-)

--
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Re:No opinion on TFA... by LoveLiberty2004 · 2004-09-23 00:29 · Score: 0

No offense, but if you look at polls long enough, they'll probably drive you batty. I am not able to put faith in any of them, including a poll of our troops.
I've personally spoken to lots of people in the military, including an Army officer last night who said that altho he is ordinarily surrounded by zillions of die-hard republicans... even they, are starting to waver over this war. (His son is being shipped to Iraq in a few weeks as well.) I've spoken to troops headed overseas as well, and an Army chaplain who is in position to speak with *lots* of troops. I don't think the support for Bush amongst the troops is anywhere near overwhelming, but this is just my opinion.
I think that if these guys are given the chance to vote, the Repubs might be surprised... because even people who ordinarily are conservative or agree with conservatives on most issues, might have to reconsider after seeing their buddies killed and maimed for... what? Anyone know the count of American wounded? Last I heard was approx. 7000.
Also, don't forget that Bush is making heavy use of the National Guard to fight in Iraq, which is ironic considering that his joining the National Guard was deliberately to *avoid* being sent to war. So those guys in the Guard are probably not too full of love for him right now.
But hey, I'd be glad to see the Repubs step up and get these votes to the polls either way. I guess we'll see what happens. :)

--
http://www.loveliberty2004.com
Re:No opinion on TFA... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-23 03:31 · Score: 0

you really beleive that an ammendment to the fucking constitution will passed?

please stay home and dont vote, you are not capable of understanding the issues.

we dont need more stupid people voting, we need less people voting.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by overunderunderdone · 2004-09-23 04:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Anecdotal evidence is interesting, but all of us tend to be in cocoons of like minded people. Remember the famous quote from New Yorker commentator Pauline Kael about Nixons record landslide victory in 1972: "I don't understand how he won. I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon". Thats because she only knows a small group of people who are mostly just like her, and in that case exceptionally unlike the sweeping majority

Polls are often wrong and skewed, but anecdotal evidence is even worse when you are talking about huge, sprawling populations with myriad subcultures. I'd imagine that Kerry will do very well with Air Force techies at Hanscom AFB, but rather less well among Marine corps officers from Alabama. Anecdotal evidence from either source will skew the perceptions. The story was about a nice big chunk of military voters. 30%-40% is a large group and will generate plenty of anecdotal evidence to those they talk to suggesting a Kerry surge in the military... but it's still only 30-40% of the total vote.

I also suspect that in your analysis you are projecting your values and beliefs onto people that do not necessarily share them. You are imagining your response, believing what you do, with the values you have if you were in their shoes. But they are not you and their thoughts informed by different presuppositions are liable to be quite different. You think about how you would feel if it was your buddies getting shot up for "no good reason" without acknowledging that no matter how much you disagree with them a lot of these guys don't see it as "no good reason". Say they've "swallowed the kool-aid" or bought the propaganda... but those poor souls suffering under that nefarious misapprehension are going to come to different conclusions that will affect their vote.
Re:No opinion on TFA... by overunderunderdone · 2004-09-23 04:46 · Score: 1

Another point. Perhaps there is growing disillusionment among those taking casualties. But Iraq as bad as it now is, is not that bloody a conflict by any historical standard. In 1966 when U.S. forces were in Vietnam at same number as what we have now in Iraq the death rate was 16 soldiers per day. We had been there longer at that point while things were going from bad to worse, and it still took a few more years of that level of fruitless struggle before the disillusionment truly set in.

This is the scary ghost that haunts Iraq. I'm sure every soldier has that "quagmire" possibility in his mind. But it is premature to label it as such yet. There have been profound setbacks, the Sunni uprising is escalating and growing in sophistication, there is a new indigenous Shiite uprising, there is interference from both foreign Wahabbi islamists and Iran. But there has been some progress and signs of hope. First, the Shiite uprising is small, relatively unpopular with most shiites and opposed pretty strongly by the most powerful Shiite clerics who forced Al Sadr to withdraw from Najaf. This group remains the more serious threat since it is rooted in the large Shiite majority. Should the bulk of Shiites adopt Al Sadr's cause we are toast. Fortunately Al Sadr is seen as a rebel not only to the USA and provisional government but also to the authority of senior and more importantly *popular* Shiite clerics. The Sunni situation is a more immediate and sharper problem. But even there I think we have a pretty big stick to use. Threaten them with the reality of what would happen if we DID leave. Sunni's are a hated minority, in the long run they have more invested in peace and stability than they currently realize. Threaten them with an election among all peaceful provinces... A legitimized super-majority of Shiites with 50 years of grievances who are just reasonable enough for us to work with. Against that delegitimized Sunni's painted in American public opinion with the broad brush of radical Wahabism? I think we could convince more than a few of the more reasonable Sunni tribal leaders and politicians that the consequences of such an arrangement would be catastrophic for them.

Are Democrats ever happy? by TykeClone · 2004-09-21 05:49 · Score: 1

They're the happiest people I know - just look at Howard Dean!

Seriously though - One can argue whether or not this is a good idea, but they are better than [insert e-voting manufacturer here] in at least trying to be proactive in eliminating problems.

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.

this is news? by nocomment · 2004-09-21 05:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Big deal. They also made http://www.overseasvote2004.com/ page. Get over it. What's to be upset about?

--
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
/* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */

Re:this is news? by welloy · 2004-09-21 08:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

The site you reference claims to be: "Paid for by the Democratic National Committee", not the US Gov't.

Don't worry, all good foreign hackers have access by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 05:50 · Score: 0

Don't worry, all the good foreign hackers have plenty of local U.S. based accounts from which to launch their attacks. This screening shouldn't diminish the quality of the attacks in any noticable way. If you're a U.S. citizen who must be overseas during the election, just contact a friendly hacker for access!

WTF?? by Malfourmed · 2004-09-21 05:51 · Score: 3, Funny

Let me see if I get this straight...

The US government has set up a website to help overseas Americans to vote.

But it's blocked access to that website by overseas ISPs, the ISPs that overseas American voters would need to use to access that site.

But wait! It's okay - only the big ISPs are blocked... just the ones most American voters are likely to use.

And all this to prevent the site from being hacked.

I guess they had to destroy the global village in order to save it.

--
a world in progress...

Re:WTF?? by aj50 · 2004-09-21 06:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

It certainly does seem to defeat the point of even having an overseas online ballot if most overseas ISPs can't get access to the page. Should be interesting to see how much the site is actually used.

--
I wish to remain anomalous
Re:WTF?? by nocomment · 2004-09-21 06:26 · Score: 1

no no no the _main_ page is blocked. http://www.fvap.gov/ there's another page just for overseas ballots that isn't blocked http://www.overseasvote2004.com/.

--
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
/* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */

This is not a voting site by alatesystems · 2004-09-21 05:54 · Score: 4, Informative

This site provides information about voting absentee. The summary and title makes it look like they are letting people vote online, and I almost flipped out before I RTFA.

I know others won't RTFA so I wanted to throw that out there. I hope they never allow voting online, as this is the most sacrosanct privilege we have and I don't want anyone to have the ability to intercept my or anyone else's vote.

It's not a big problem to drive to the nearest school to punch a few buttons and hit "cast vote".

Chris

Re:This is not a voting site by WhatAmIDoingHere · 2004-09-21 10:42 · Score: 1

So if I'm in, say, Japan.. and I go to the closest school to me.. I can cast my votes in the USA election?

--
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.

Netcraft results by Masker · 2004-09-21 05:56 · Score: 3, Informative

The purpose, from the article:

"The goal is to make it more difficult for hackers to deface and/or hijack the website," said Lieutenant Colonel Ellen Krenke.

Well, Netcraft says it's running Solaris 8 machine running Sun-ONE-Web-Server/6.1.

How about putting the webserver up on Trusted Solaris and locking down the webserver to have fewer privs, like no write access (enforced via MAC, mandatory access controls) to the pages that you're worried about getting defaced?

But, teh intarweb isn't the only way to get info for overseas voting. From the article:

"In the meantime, overseas voters can contact their embassy or consulate, use the FVAP toll-free number or contact their local election official or secretary of state via telephone or the internet for more information on obtaining an absentee ballot," said Lieutenant Colonel Krenke.

--

---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

But we'll know if the Chinese hack it by commodoresloat · 2004-09-21 06:05 · Score: 2, Funny

After all, it will say "Hacked by Chinese" on the home page.

Overseas? Find an open HTTP relay... by YetAnotherName · 2004-09-21 06:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

You can google for open HTTP proxies, or even just visit this site. Pick one in the US, set up your browser, and away you go. Paraphrasing John Gilmore, the Net interprets regionalization as damage and routes around it.

I use this technique to visit Japanese idol sites that disallow non .jp addresses. Slower, but better than not getting any, er, "eye-candy."

Try living abroad by SilentJ_PDX · 2004-09-21 06:20 · Score: 1

It's not a big problem to drive to the nearest school to punch a few buttons and hit "cast vote".

I can't go to the nearest school on voting day. Voting by post is currently the only option available to voters abroad.

I realize that computer voting is in it's infancy and has a load of bad history, but given that I spend thousands of dollars each year in online shops, I don't think it's hard to imagine that safe, secure computer voting is in our near future. I know that I'd definitely trust a well-designed internet voting site more than I'd trust the international post.

Testing internet voting on those abroad would make a lot of sense. We constitute a tiny fraction of the entire voting population so mistakes would have very limited effect.

All of this is assuming that they put smart people on the job of designing and securing the site... something that our government hasn't figured out yet.

He, he. by hummassa · 2004-09-21 06:26 · Score: 1

I almost fell. Really, you almost, almost got me.
But the Beijing hiring hackers from Taiwan thing denounced you.
Better luck next time. :-)

--
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048

can you say "proxy"? by nusratt · 2004-09-21 06:35 · Score: 1

why doesn't someone simply enable proxy access, as was discussed for viewing region-restricted Olympics broadcasts?

and what about existing services like Anonymizer?

Re:can you say "proxy"? by Stephen+Samuel · 2004-09-21 08:48 · Score: 1

That's nice, but how many tourists and other people overseas going to know how to do that? There's always a solution for the technologically advanced, but not that many people technologically advanced (pretty much by definition).
Now that you mention it: This is stupid. If I was going to hack the site, I wouldn't use a public Proxy, I'd buy a fleet of US-based Zombie boxes (at $0.15 each) and do my hacking from one of them.

--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Re:can you say "proxy"? by nusratt · 2004-09-22 07:40 · Score: 1

"how many tourists and other people overseas going to know how to do that?"

My point was:
someone in the **USA** should put up a proxy for *anyone* overseas to use.
Re:can you say "proxy"? by Stephen+Samuel · 2004-09-22 09:49 · Score: 1

That's fine --- but once , say I put up that proxy,
How many people would know how to look for it and use it? Also: countries like China seems to like blocking connections to open proxys, so even those people in China who knew how to find and use my proxy would soon lose access.

--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Re:can you say "proxy"? by nusratt · 2004-09-23 03:56 · Score: 1

"proxy...How many people would know how to look for it and use it? Also: countries like China seems to like blocking"

People who are savvy enough to be using TFA's website in the first place, could likely be reached via the same means which informs them of the DoD's block.
But that's really beside the point, i.e. "better to light a candle than curse the darkness", and the lame inadequacy of the DoD's effort.

Also, I'd guess that the percentage of affected expats who are in China is miniscule.
Re:can you say "proxy"? by Stephen+Samuel · 2004-09-23 08:38 · Score: 1

Many people who know of the TFA site may just find out about the block the hard way (and decide that the problem is 'in the internet' (esp if they're in the middle of nowhere ))
I don't disagree that some people will use proxies, and that proves the uselessness of the DoD's block... Not only that, but the people most likely to use proxies (including somebody's zombied home PC) is preciesly the hackers they claim to be blocking.
More to the point, I expect that they know this.
The only purpose that I can see for blocking the site the way that they have done this is that they want to block foreign users without making it obvious to the people at home who think that the site is up and running and enabling fair access to being able to vote.
Unless you block every IP in the US (which probably accounts for about 50-75% of all zombie machines and open proxies), this block is absolutely worthless.
In fact, what they should do, if you really follow their logic, is encase their sparc box in cement, drop it to the bottom of the Hover dam reserve, and put a guard around the reserve.

--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.

disturbing sub-text, did you notice? by nusratt · 2004-09-21 06:42 · Score: 1, Interesting

Doesn't it bother anyone that the ***DoD*** (as opposed to the agency which "owns" the site) has the physical ability -- let alone the brazenness -- let alone the legal authority -- to do this?

And don't you wonder if this ability is limited to blocking only govt sites, versus blocking ANY USA-hosted site?

Re:disturbing sub-text, did you notice? by Dahan · 2004-09-21 07:00 · Score: 3, Informative

Doesn't it bother anyone that the ***DoD*** (as opposed to the agency which "owns" the site) has the physical ability -- let alone the brazenness -- let alone the legal authority -- to do this?
No, because I read the whole article, and saw the part mentioning that "The US Department of Defense ... runs the Federal Voting Assistance Program." The DoD is the agency that "owns" the site.
And this whole thing is much ado about very little. The website is just a place where you can get info on how to vote absentee and download an absentee ballot request form. People have been voting absentee long before this website was around, and they can continue to do so. Your local US Embassy will have the ballot request form, for example (and they'll even mail it for you free there). Also, most (perhaps all?) states have their own absentee ballots that you can apply for.
Re:disturbing sub-text, did you notice? by nocomment · 2004-09-21 07:03 · Score: 1

take off the tin-foil hat, yes, the DoD can and has done that, and does have the authority to do that. It's also worth noting THAT IT'S NO BIG DEAL!!! look for *no comments* comment above

--
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
/* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
Re:disturbing sub-text, did you notice? by DAldredge · 2004-09-21 12:41 · Score: 1

Yes it fucking sucks that the DOD can block who can access sites that the DOD runs.

Did you even read the article?
Re:disturbing sub-text, did you notice? by nusratt · 2004-09-22 07:27 · Score: 1

"I read the whole article, and saw ... The DoD is the agency that "owns" the site."

ok, my bad.
but I agree with l4m3z0r (799504) who replied to you, saying that the DoD shouldn't be the owner.

Also, I disagree with you about "much ado about very little":
either the site is intended to fulfill an important function -- for NON-mil expats -- or not;
and if it is so intended, then DoD shouldn't be in charge, let alone blocking it.
Re:disturbing sub-text, did you notice? by nusratt · 2004-09-22 07:38 · Score: 1

didn't read that part, and I already copped to that.
my bad.
Re:disturbing sub-text, did you notice? by nusratt · 2004-09-22 07:43 · Score: 1

yes, I misunderstood that DoD is (although shouldn't be) the host for the site.
It's supposed to be for ALL expats, not just mil, right?

DDOS maybe? by j0nb0y · 2004-09-21 06:58 · Score: 1

The only legit reason I can see to block networks is if they're getting a DDOS attack from many different hosts on those networks. Maybe they're blocking some networks to ensure access for others...

If it's not a DDOS, they you can probably chalk it up to incompetent management. Wouldn't be the first time for Government webites...

--
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?

Free ITUNES free Gmail free vote? by Deliveranc3 · 2004-09-21 07:06 · Score: 1

Maybe we should have a website where you can give away your vote like itunes and gmail accounts.

Perhaps the "Stay the hell out of our country you imperialist b45t4rd5!" party will finally have a chance.

RE: The Militry Blocking Itself by Stephen+Samuel · 2004-09-21 08:15 · Score: 1

After all, isn't the military the largest portion of the voting public abroad? And don't they overwhelmingly vote Republican?

DO you really think that the military would block their own networks?? Given their excuse (fear of hackers), do yuo think that they'd admit that their own network was compromised by hackers (even if it was)??

--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.

Of course Democrats are upset by b-baggins · 2004-09-21 08:30 · Score: 1

It's too much work for them to actually get off their butts and obtain the paper form from their embassy or via mail.

--
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.

Re:Of course Democrats are upset by VoidWraith · 2004-09-21 11:05 · Score: 1

If you'd bothered to look, you'd notice that the site is a way to get information about voting abroad. Not an alternative to the papers.

Real easy solution by Stephen+Samuel · 2004-09-21 08:31 · Score: 1

Put the entire website on a CD ROM (or DVD, if it's that big) with cachefs, and create symbolic links for any parts that need constant updates (like any databases).

Site updates can be done by cycling the webserver and swapping out the CD.

At that point, you'd pretty much need to attain root access to deface the box. If you remove everything that's not necessary to serving the site, you remove most of the capability for rooting the box.

--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.

typical government... by Kr3m3Puff · 2004-09-21 08:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

I love the governments response... Block overseas ISPs for overseas voters and then if you RTFA, you will see the government response to that is to have them call a Toll Free Number. Why would the government have a toll free number in the US for overseas voters?! Don't they know that when you call from overseas the numbers aren't toll free. In France, you have to totally dial the number another way and in fact, most Toll Free Numbers don't allow international terminations without special provisioning. I can only assume they have done that.

Yes, Virginia there are Americans who don't live in America!

--
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.

Re:typical government... by EnronHaliburton2004 · 2004-09-21 11:32 · Score: 1

I'm sure that the people who thought up the toll free number alternative know that toll free numbers are hard to use overseas. That's the point.

(Not just France, I've had to deal with toll free numbers in UK, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Czech Republic).

--
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
Re:typical government... by kilrogg · 2004-09-21 15:01 · Score: 1

Gee, 15 seconds on the website, and I found this page listing all the toll free numbers they have in 64 different countries. Mind you, people oversees can't reach that page.
Re:typical government... by will_die · 2004-09-21 23:08 · Score: 1

Called toll free from europe with no problem. Also tried going through the AT&T switch and had no problems.

You and Who's Army???? by Stephen+Samuel · 2004-09-21 08:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let me get this straight:

The Department of Defence claims that they don't have the knowledge and equipment to defend one single website???!!!

Phreak!

So when do they change their name to Department of the Defenceless?

Next up: ..... (Cripes... My absurdity generator can't come up with a more absurd analogy to this!)

--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.

Re:You and Who's Army???? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 14:09 · Score: 0

Are ya slow or something they are defending it.
Re:You and Who's Army???? by Stephen+Samuel · 2004-09-21 18:43 · Score: 1

Are ya slow or something they are defending it.
You don't defend the statue of liberty from 'terrorist attack' by covering it with 10 million pounds of styrofoam. It defeats the whole purpose...
Just like making a website designed to help citizens abroad vote unavailable to most citizens abroad defeats the whole purpose of having the site there far more effectively than any theoretical attack would.
It seems to be Bush administration standard practice to do the terrorists' job for them.

--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.

Ignorance is Strength by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-21 09:14 · Score: 0, Flamebait

In other news, the Pentagon shut down the 2004 Election, citing security threats, both from terrorist attacks and ballot fraud.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:Ignorance is Strength by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-22 15:31 · Score: 1

Starting Score: 1 point
Moderation -1
100% Flamebait
Total Score: 1

Who's going to flame me, the Pentagon?

--
--
make install -not war

Smart People by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2004-09-21 09:25 · Score: 1

Will be leaving the U.S. like rats from sinking ship.

I spent a lot of the past couple of weeks with folks from Sweden, Czech Republic, and Malaysia. Who would have thought that ten, short years ago, each of these would become a haven of free thought compared to the Wal-Mart Wonderland.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Re:Smart People by CodeMonkey4Hire · 2004-09-22 03:37 · Score: 1

Opinion: If you were to put this to a [unbiased] poll, I'd bet that your statement was wrong. None of my smart friends* have ever talked about leaving the US over issues like this.

*This is not an opportunity to attack my ability to decide whether my friends are intelligent.

--

Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!

Huh? by Brandybuck · 2004-09-21 10:02 · Score: 1

...but Democrats Abroad aren't happy.

But Republicans are? No Greens or Libertarians are bitching about it either? Just the Democrats? I don't get this. This affects ALL voters abroad, not just the Democrats.

This may be a stupid move by the DoD, but this isn't an anti-Kerry conspiracy. Get real.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!

Re:Huh? by VoidWraith · 2004-09-21 11:00 · Score: 1

Democrats Abroad is a group which spoke out against this action and is mentioned in the article. RTFA.
Re:Huh? by thegnu · 2004-09-21 13:41 · Score: 1

well damn the difference between "isn't" and "aren't", huh?

--
Please stop stalking me, bro.

What a load of crap by EnronHaliburton2004 · 2004-09-21 12:01 · Score: 1

"The goal is to make it more difficult for hackers to deface and/or hijack the website," said Lieutenant Colonel Ellen Krenke.

What a load of crap.

We web-savvy Slashdoters all know that it's pretty easy to allow access to the HTTP & HTTPS ports and still maintain a very secure website by blocking access to all other ports.

Unless you have some wacky scripting on the site, this level of security is trivial.

Blocking by IP number isn't a good security solution, because the hackers can always find another security solution.

Blocking IP numbers really doesn't

--
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act

Re: What a load of crap by SavoryFuzzyCheeses · 2004-09-21 14:28 · Score: 1

Dude.
"The goal is to make it more difficult for hackers to deface and/or hijack the website," said Lieutenant Colonel Ellen Krenke.
The "sysadmin" in question is a chick. Pretty much guarantees that she'll be taken in by FUD and "better safe than sorry" womanly nonsense.
I submit to you that any well-worded assertion predicated upon original and rational thought will raise howls of protest from the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (rehash of the failed and immoral "temperance movement" (i.e., the recurring meme that encourages the insulting and unbiblical (cf. Genesis 1:29: "God said, 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;' and it was so.") suppression of the consumption of plants given to us by God for our sustenance and pleasure)), Million Mom March (attempt to subvert the respect for motherhood by associating the delusional wailings of those who cannot mentally separate a tool from its wielder with an unconstitutional effort to destroy our inalienable, individual ("A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788)) right to defend ourselves against both foreign invaders and corrupt tyrants and usurpers (note that Diane Feinstein has a concealed carry permit but she doesn't want the hoi polloi, the proles, WE THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES to be on an equal footing with her; why's she afraid of the well-regulated militia if she truly preserves and protects the Constitution?)), military-industrial-pharmaceutical-complex worshipping toadies.
We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Note the blatant censorship by Skull & Bones, Bush & Kerry, Kang & Kodos, yin & yang, there is no hope, your vote is a joke, the republic is dead, of "Chapter 5: The Right to Bear Arms" (compare Chapter 4 and Chapter 6)!

Re:Threat of Chinese Hackers by EnronHaliburton2004 · 2004-09-21 12:15 · Score: 1

And how many of those hacks happened through the HTTP port? Probably close to zero.

Block the other stuff, but there is virtually no need to block the HTTP port.

--
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act

WAH WAH WAH by pauldy · 2004-09-21 14:07 · Score: 1

"The web site is down I can't vote." Please what a bunch of Losers with a capital L. Is this was this election is going to be all about, how people are being denied their voting rights? We are going to have another Florida based off the fact there is a group of people in this country who can't be wrong. There are other ways of voting overseas they are loosing a convenience not their rights and to the group who is claiming that they are being denied the right to vote how about some true journalism and call these jokers out who make unsubstantiated outlandish claims of being wronged just because someone inconveniences them.

Re:WAH WAH WAH by SuperficialRhyme · 2004-09-21 15:37 · Score: 1

"The web site is down I can't vote." Please what a bunch of Losers with a capital L. Is this was this election is going to be all about, how people are being denied their voting rights?

I hate to be consise but that really does seem like a pretty important issue to me.

To give some context to the issue though: Blocking by IP isn't effective because most hackers will already be using a compromised machine or a proxy. It would surprise me if the Department of Defense is not aware of this. With the number of zombie machines in the US, I believe this probably inconveniences Americans overseas without causing problems for anyone trying to hack the site. To me, that indicates that the issue is probably not "hackers" and so of course I'd be a bit suspicious.
Re:WAH WAH WAH by pauldy · 2004-09-21 17:49 · Score: 1

Don't be dumb in thinking somehow that was a statement of avocation in denying peoples right to vote. It was simply a statement of the obvious, they are taking the stance that inconveniencing is somehow preventing people from voting. If you think this is true then you are just as much a loser as these people. They are not victims of oppression because they can't order their voting cards over the web and nothing you can say would convince a normal person otherwise.

As for the administration, you don't know what you are talking about. Anyone who has done anything like this understands that much of the traffic that is generated is done so to keep you busy while someone who knows what they are doing is able to hide in the noise. It is a very basic tactic. Anyone who has run any server on the network worth their salt has been through their logs to find hundreds of hack attempts. One of the major contributors to this is wanadoo.fr. The addresses they blocked are well known in network administration to be problem networks.

This is exactly why I find these articles so offensive. It elicits a response of emotion from the ignorant people who will automatically see the US government as being bad while people are being oppressed and it is flat out wrong of them to do this.
Re:WAH WAH WAH by MillionthMonkey · 2004-09-21 20:37 · Score: 1

Don't be dumb in thinking somehow that was a statement of avocation in denying peoples right to vote. It was simply a statement of the obvious, they are taking the stance that inconveniencing is somehow preventing people from voting. If you think this is true then you are just as much a loser as these people. They are not victims of oppression because they can't order their voting cards over the web and nothing you can say would convince a normal person otherwise.

Please RTFA before posting. They quietly shut down access to the site days before the registration deadline. This site had been advertised by the U.S. Government on foreign channels as being the preferred way for expatriates to register. Most overseas voters would probably make a reasonable assumption that the server would be there during the last week before the deadline. If you know you can do something over the web, you'll probably procrastinate. Now you'd be SOL. This is an attempt to boost Bush by running out the clock on expatriate voters- who favor Kerry by a 22 percent margin.
Re:WAH WAH WAH by pauldy · 2004-09-22 17:54 · Score: 1

I think you're the one you didn't read the article. About the only thing you cite that was in it is the idea the site had access shut down to it.

Just for the record, I'm not to keen on the idea of expatriates voting for the leaders of the country I call home. As for Americans abroad who are unable to vote, this may be an inconvenience for them but it is just that an inconvenience. But your whining because your afraid there won't be enough votes counted for John Kerry so lets call a spade a spade and you a fanatical John Kerry supporter who thinks he might miss out on the so called 22% of Americans abroad who would have voted for him over Bush. This is a very surprising statistic seeing as how historically cited information places Americans abroad voting in numbers between 65 and 75% republican. I think you got your facts confused or misread something. Maybe that 22% of Americans abroad would vote for Kerry over Bush but not 22% more Americans abroad would vote for Kerry over Bush.

I'm sure you think Kerry is a great man and maybe he is but I would be very surprised to see anyone else in the white house but bush come 2005. Clinton was a proven self indulgent adulterer who still made 2 terms in office. I've yet to see any of the allegations against Bush proven to any extent and I think he has done a great job. I don't see the rest of sane America being that far off from where I am right now.

snail mail by Squinky86 · 2004-09-21 14:54 · Score: 1

yet there's still time in almost every state to register by snail mail, if you feel that strongly about it.

Dems unhappy? by Down8 · 2004-09-21 16:58 · Score: 1

Interesting that should be pointed out, since the military is more likely to be Republican-leaning.

-bZj

--
.sig

Vote by CGP314 · 2004-09-21 20:26 · Score: 1

If you're an American overseas and still want to vote, I think the easiest way is just to drop an email to the US Embassy in your country telling them what state your from.

For Americans in the UK, there's a form you can fill out on the embassy webpage here

-Colin

I think this begs the question by l4m3z0r · 2004-09-22 01:15 · Score: 1

Why does the DoD run a voting program? Since the DoD is so closely related to the military I would expect them to want to keep that seperate, I know I don't like mixing my generals and politicians or my military with voting implementation. A body with arms whose sole training revolves around the use of force should not be the caretaker of voting programs.

Flamebait and Bias by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-22 02:25 · Score: 0