Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Bans Paperless Voting -- For 2006

Posted by timothy on from the so-they-support-excess-pollution dept.

bizpile writes "Gov. Schwarzenegger signed a law requiring that all electronic voting machines produce paper records of every ballot cast. Under the bill, signed Monday, voters will not be able to touch or keep the records. Instead, election officials will put them in locked boxes if a recount is needed. Legislators in nearly two dozen states have introduced similar bills and New Hampshire, Illinois and Oregon already have laws requiring paper backups. However, those states have few, if any, touch-screen voting terminals. The law goes into effect in 2006. Now if they could just figure what to do this election."

46 comments

  1. this shouldnt be happening in california... by applegoddess · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it should be happening in places like florida and other important/swing states, and all places that use voting machines that are as vulnerable as Diebold's pieces of junk...and this election is so much more important than the 2006 election in california ):

    1. Re:this shouldnt be happening in california... by TiggsPanther · · Score: 1

      You're probably[*] right right that it should be happening in other places, but I'm not sure that it shouldn't be happening in California.
      It might not need it, but that might work in it's favour. If one State does it by choice then it weakens arguments by other states if they try to claim it's not feasible. Plus it's Arnie, so it's bound to get slightly higher profile coverage than if it was J. Random-Governor from elsewhere. And it's about time that good policies started getting as high a profile as bad policies - or how else will people know thet there are good alternatives to things out there?

      Now yeah, it would proably be nice/useful/important if it could happen for the upcoming election. But given the timescale that might not be viable. But, if this works well in California in 2006 then it might well catch on across more of America in the next elections. (2008?)

      Quoting the article:
      "This will definitely help advance the paper trail issue elsewhere," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. "California represents a huge part of the voting equipment market, and all the major vendors have equipment here. If they want to keep their business here, they'll have to come up with a paper trail feature."

      If California does hold such a big part of the voting equipment market then it probably is a good place to start. 'Cos once the feature crops up in more hardware then it's more likely to be used elsewhere too. And even if it the advantages it provides can't help in this election, they'd hopefully be there for subsequent ones.

      [*] I'm a Brit, so I don't know enough to categorically state one way or the other.

      --
      Tiggs
      "120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
    2. Re:this shouldnt be happening in california... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is california. It doesn't matter if some dufous like arnie is in office or some relatively unknow dufous. California is big enough that many changes here get noticed in other states.

  2. Two issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Under the bill, signed Monday, voters will not be able to touch or keep the records.

    They'll be able to see them though, right? Right? Otherwise, what stops an incorrect electronic vote being backed up by an incorrect paper vote?

    Instead, election officials will put them in locked boxes if a recount is needed.

    So who decides when a recount is needed? If a voting machine screws up 10% of the time and the winning margin is 5%, how will that be picked up against the assumed scenario of a voting machine working correctly and the winning margin being 5% to a different candidate? If an outcome is so obviously false (e.g. twice as many votes as voters), then the paper trail isn't necessary, and if the paper trail is followed for every election, there is no benefit over normal paper voting.

    Of course, everyone advocating for pen + paper voting in the first place (of which I am usually one) will point out, "yes, we've been saying this for years", it just seems that it's so completely and utterly without merit that I must be missing something obvious.

    1. Re:Two issues by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      So who decides when a recount is needed? If a voting machine screws up 10% of the time and the winning margin is 5%, how will that be picked up against the assumed scenario of a voting machine working correctly and the winning margin being 5% to a different candidate? If an outcome is so obviously false (e.g. twice as many votes as voters), then the paper trail isn't necessary, and if the paper trail is followed for every election, there is no benefit over normal paper voting.
      Well, exit polls are usually very accurate, and would tend to show if something was amiss.
      You could have 2 scenarios:
      If the exit polls are way out of sync with the results of the electronic voting, then a recount is issued.
      If the vote count was withing some small percentage(like say 5) and the loser wants to challenge and can get say 10% of the state to sign a petetion asking for a recount, then one will be issued.
      Obviously, these are over-simplified examples, but I think it proves my point that there need to be codified rules for when a recount is issued.

      --
      Monstar L
  3. Give the man his due. by Dr.+Bent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK I realize that this may be a bit offtopic, but I've got Karma to burn, so here goes:

    Arnold is doing a good job as Governor.

    Uh oh...I've gone and done it now. I've thrown all my credibility out the window. I must be an idiot for thinking that an actor could be a good governor. I must be stupid for thinking that anyone but a professional politican could actually hold office, not to mention the top executive office of the most powerful state in the union.

    To those politically ill-informed among you, I know this may come as a shock. I know that you enjoy following every reference to the Governor with some half-wit, cliche joke about how he's going to 'terminate' something, but guess what? He's actually doing his job well. Balancing the budget, reforming the workman's comp program, and lots of other little-published but much needed reforms (such as this one) are all what California desperately needs.

    The framers didn't want America to be run by professional policicans. They wanted America to be run by it's people. Average citizens to step for a few years to perform a civic duty, and then go back to the private sector to get on with thier lives. That's what Arnold is doing. He's cleaning up other people's messes because it needs to get done. I'm sure he got lots of other motivations that are not nearly as noble, of course, but the fact remains that he's fixing a problem that needs to be fixed, and you have to give him credit for that.

    1. Re:Give the man his due. by Bombcar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ah, we love to call him the Governator, and it makes it all the better when he actually does a good job.

      --
      Fellowship 9/11
    2. Re:Give the man his due. by ad0gg · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to troll but an average American is not a hollywood superstar.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    3. Re:Give the man his due. by KevinIsOwn · · Score: 1

      He is really only doing a reasonable job. While has pushed through many needed reforms, his balancing of the budget was a short term solution that will seriously hamper California in the future.

      The Arnold solution essentially pushed the debt off to be dealt with at a later date- after interest will take its toll on it and create an even larger debt.
      So Arnold wins points for an effective short term solution, but losses points for a screwing California in the future unless taxes are raised.

      The real solution would have been to repeal prop 187. Prop 187 has severely hampered the California legislature's ability to support the extensive programs that California has in place that are for the most part very good.

  4. Judgement Day by urbaer · · Score: 2

    "By the time Skynet became self-aware it had spread into millions of computer servers across the planet. Ordinary computers in office buildings, dorm rooms; everywhere. It was software; in cyberspace. There was no system core; it could not be shutdown. The attack began at 6:18 PM, just as he said it would. Judgment Day, the day the human race was almost destroyed by the weapons they'd built to protect themselves. I should have realized it was never our destiny to stop judgment day - merely to survive it, together. The terminator knew; he tried to tell us. But I didn't want to hear it. Maybe the future has been written..."
    Terminator 3: ROTM

    Yeah, see it'll be better if Skynet prints out a statement on a little bit of paper telling us this.

    -- SKYNET --
    Judgement Day will occur today
    Thank you for your input
    --MESSAGE ENDS --

    I really, really need more sleep.
    Someone come up with something funnier... please...

  5. Illinois... by Slime-dogg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It doesn't really matter what policy Illinois has. It's the home of the democratic machine. It's where Obama comes from. Even if the state had a real republican vote, enough dead people would vote democrat to change that result.

    It's strange, though. About 85% of the land area of Illinois contains primarily republicans, but it's really just the vote of Chicago that matters.

    --
    You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    1. Re:Illinois... by michael_cain · · Score: 1
      It's strange, though. About 85% of the land area of Illinois contains primarily republicans, but it's really just the vote of Chicago that matters.

      Pull up the county-by-county red-blue map from the 2000 Presidential election from here. It is clear that, with some small exceptions, we are becoming a country polarized along urban/rural lines. California, one of the bluest of states, is in reality blue only along the coast -- the much larger interior appears to be solidly red. While many such maps like to point out how many more square miles the red counties occupy, I prefer the estimate (without link at hand, darn it) that says over 60% of GDP is produced in the blue counties.

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

      First, its the Illinois Republicans that have been corrupt over the past few years. Ever heard of the Licenses for Bribes scandal. Care to give any evidence of voting shenanigans by the Illinois Dems in the past 20 years?

      Second, who cares that large empty areas are mostly Republican. The majority of people are Democrats. That most people's votes are irrelevant is the fault of the Electoral College which benefits the rural vote nationally much more than the urban vote.

      Of course, it would help the Illinois GOP if they could put up a canidate for Senate which could get more than half the Republican votes.

    3. Re:Illinois... by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      One republican does not a party make. Everything that happened under Ryan was dispicable, especially his letting condemned murderers out of prison.

      The dems in Chicago are by far the most corrupt pieces of political poo on this Earth. We can go scandal for scandal, and you wouldn't stand a chance. How about paying truckers to sleep in parking lots? How about giving contracts to friends and family, instead of choosing the best option for the people? How about Millenium Park? Miggs? The Wrigley Field fiasco? (chunks have been falling there since the 60's. Daily only now decided to start bitching about it. I guess it has something to do with the comparative success of the Cubs vs. the Sox) Then there's the blacktop scandal as well.

      I could also go into the fact that if people find out that you voted republican, they seem to have a good success rate, you lose your garbage service. Oh, I know that it's not how it's "supposed" to be, but the unions make it that way.

      Face it. Daily and his cronies have iron-fisted control over Chicagoan politics. The unions make sure that votes go his way, and the democrat way. It's always been this way with the Daily family. I wouldn't be surprised if they have mob connections either. People love Daily, though. He keeps the streets clean of garbage, and makes sure that the snow plows are out on time. As if this makes a mayor.

      There is nothing dirtier than Chicagoan politics. To deny it just furthers that corruption.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
  6. Thermal printers by k4_pacific · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are they using thermal printers or dot matrix? I've noticed that thermally printed receipts tend to fade after a few weeks.

    --
    Unknown host pong.
    1. Re:Thermal printers by Txiasaeia · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dot matrix is too horrible to imagine: a million printers chattering in unison, their screams overtaking the cries of anguish should win. It will be a tragedy like no other.

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    2. Re:Thermal printers by Txiasaeia · · Score: 1
      bloody HTML tags! ..."their screams overtaking the cries of anguish should [insert favourite candidate here] win. It will be a tragedy like no other.

      --
      Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    3. Re:Thermal printers by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

      probably thermal paper, because its much easier to deal with than other means.

      dot matrix (as another poster mentioned) is not pleasent sounding

      laser- well its just too expensive to have one laser printer per booth, yes it is possible to have one printer per precient, but that presents other problems too (like getting in line, getting them mixed up, etc)

      ink- well ink goes dry, and cartridges need to be replaced (kinda difficult)

      thermal- thermal does fade, but they aren't that bad, unless you keep the recipets in your wallet.

      --
      Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    4. Re:Thermal printers by MagicM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think dot matrix might cause a privacy issue. It would be easy enough to tell by the sound which candidate the vote is for.

  7. Just think of Ronald Reagan... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1
    Ronald Reagan? The actor?!? Then who's vice president, Jerry Lewis?

    I suppose Jane Wyman is the first lady... and Jack Benny is secretary of the treasury!

    (cut to Marty imploring Doc to listen to his tale of flux capacitors).

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    1. Re:Just think of Ronald Reagan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If, on a scale of one to ten of geekiness, recognising this quote gets you a five, what do you get for recognising the fact that a scene set in 1955 shouldn't refer to Jane Wyman? (Ronald Reagan divorced her in 1948 and married Nancy Davis in 1952).

  8. Why this bill rocks - full analysis by JimMarch(equalccw) · · Score: 2, Informative

    The complete bill text is available at: http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb _1438_bill_20040827_enrolled.html Before going into the effects, let's talk about how recounts work: There is already a California law mandating a 1% random "spot check" manual recount post-election. So that's one way. Two, elections officials can do more recounting at their own discretion if they "smell a rat". It's not very common. Three, the loser of a race can ask for a manual recount. If they STILL lose, they pay the cost of the recount. There are reform proposals out there to increase the amount of post-election recount to somewhere between 3% and 5% and second, rather than random recounts, let party officials or candidates each offer "recount THESE precincts!" suggestions. They're more likely to know "where the bodies might be buried" if there's been cheating. ------------- The voter can't be allowed to prove later how they voted. That'll lead to threats if they "don't vote right" from union bosses, corporate bosses or whatever, or vote selling. Most proposals call for printing "under glass" so you can see the paper, you can hit a "cancel button" if it's not right, or you can approve it. ------------ Existing law says that the "will of the voter" is what really matters, and must be what post-election recounts are looking for. Therefore, while this bill (SB1438) doesn't specifically say that the paper trail is the "final ballot of record", that IS how they'll be treated if there's a discrepancy between the paper record and the electronic record. ------------ What this REALLY produces is a "voter verified paper trail" (VVPT). The bill uses the term "voter verified paper audit trail", but then *defines* that term explicitly: "19251(c) "Voter verified paper audit trail" means a component of a direct recording electronic voting system that prints a contemporaneous paper record copy of each electronic ballot and allows each voter to confirm his or her selections before the voter casts his or her ballot." It works as written, but we dodged a bullet here. "Voter verified paper audit trail" is a term used by proponents of a "crypto audit trail" that does NOT allow the voter to confirm each individual selection at the polling place. Votehere and others have been promoting these "all crypto solutions" where the voter gets a "number" and can then confirm that their vote was recorded, but not what they voted for. Votehere is saying that the "background crypto" would form "proof" that the vote was recorded properly, and Diebold has been quietly promoting this as an alternative to a true VVPT. Crypto is fine, but only if the basic code around it is "known honest". Diebold for one is doing "known DIShonest" code. So thank the diety of your choice that the phrase "allows each voter to confirm his or her selections" is present in SB1438. We can do crypto ON TOP of a VVPT system but under SB1438, NOT in place of a VVPT. Jim March Member, Board of Directors, Black Box Voting (www.blackboxvoting.org)

  9. Bill analysis - WITH formatting this time! (sigh) by JimMarch(equalccw) · · Score: 3, Informative

    The complete bill text is available at:

    http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/ sb _1438_bill_20040827_enrolled.html

    Before going into the effects, let's talk about how recounts work:

    There is already a California law mandating a 1% random "spot check" manual recount post-election. So that's one way.

    Two, elections officials can do more recounting at their own discretion if they "smell a rat". It's not very common.

    Three, the loser of a race can ask for a manual recount. If they STILL lose, they pay the cost of the recount.

    There are reform proposals out there to increase the amount of post-election recount to somewhere between 3% and 5% and second, rather than random recounts, let party officials or candidates each offer "recount THESE precincts!" suggestions. They're more likely to know "where the bodies might be buried" if there's been cheating.

    -------------

    The voter can't be allowed to prove later how they voted. That'll lead to threats if they "don't vote right" from union bosses, corporate bosses or whatever, or vote selling. Most proposals call for printing "under glass" so you can see the paper, you can hit a "cancel button" if it's not right, or you can approve it.

    ------------

    Existing law says that the "will of the voter" is what really matters, and must be what post-election recounts are looking for. Therefore, while this bill (SB1438) doesn't specifically say that the paper trail is the "final ballot of record", that IS how they'll be treated if there's a discrepancy between the paper record and the electronic record.

    ------------

    What this REALLY produces is a "voter verified paper trail" (VVPT). The bill uses the term "voter verified paper audit trail", but then *defines* that term explicitly:

    "19251(c) "Voter verified paper audit trail" means a component of a direct recording electronic voting system that prints a contemporaneous paper record copy of each electronic ballot and allows each voter to confirm his or her selections before the voter casts his or her ballot."

    It works as written, but we dodged a bullet here.

    "Voter verified paper audit trail" is a term used by proponents of a "crypto audit trail" that does NOT allow the voter to confirm each individual selection at the polling place. Votehere and others have been promoting these "all crypto solutions" where the voter gets a "number" and can then confirm that their vote was recorded, but not what they voted for. Votehere is saying that the "background crypto" would form "proof" that the vote was recorded properly, and Diebold has been quietly promoting this as an alternative to a true VVPT.

    Crypto is fine, but only if the basic code around it is "known honest". Diebold for one is doing "known DIShonest" code.

    So thank the diety of your choice that the phrase "allows each voter to confirm his or her selections" is present in SB1438. We can do crypto ON TOP of a VVPT system but under SB1438, NOT in place of a VVPT.

    Jim March
    Member, Board of Directors, Black Box Voting (www.blackboxvoting.org)

  10. Can they SEE the records? by Kris_J · · Score: 1

    If you can't see what the black box printed on a hidden roll of paper, how do you know it's what you voted for?

    1. Re:Can they SEE the records? by JimMarch(equalccw) · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, you can see the paper and confirm every vote. Most proposals put it "behind a sheet of glass" so you can't lay mitts on it and walk away with it, but that's OK as the voting machine has a "wait, hold it, I did NOT vote for THAT asshole!" button allowing you to restart (and that piece of paper is cancelled).

      Other lower-cost alternatives involve a large sheet of paper people are less likely to walk away with; they'll stuff the sheets in a ballot box. Problem is, some people WILL be dumb and carry the paper off, meaning their vote can't be hand-counted and they can prove how they voted (selling their vote, etc).

      "Behind glass" is preferable.

      One thing though: the printer has to have an automated "cutter" or otherwise drop individual sheets to the bottom of the bucket rather than use a take-up reel on a paper spool. A take-up reel gives you the vote order; cross-ref against the sign-in list and you can strip the privacy of who voted for what.

    2. Re:Can they SEE the records? by Kris_J · · Score: 1

      Your last comment is interesting as in Australia you're crossed off an electoral roll and no information about order is retained.

    3. Re:Can they SEE the records? by JimMarch(equalccw) · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm...right. Come to think, this varies by California county - some use a "check in" system where they write your name in, others to the "cross 'em off" thing like you mention.

      "Cross 'em off from the book" may be LESS secure in some ways, as it's easy for a cheater back at the county elections HQ to cross more names off.

      It won't matter soon - most counties are moving towards an "electronic pollbook" and that's yet ANOTHER possible security disaster that needs watching. At a minimum, softwhere in there could record the vote order which could be cross-reffed against the wrong sort of paper handler in the voting booth - one with a take-up reel.

  11. Oregon's law doesn't matter... by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because Oregon only does vote-by-mail. It's all 'fill-in-the-bubble' optically read forms, mailed in to the elections office. There are *NO* traditional polling places in Oregon any more. Since all the ballots have to be mailed in (or, for those who want to save on postage, dropped off at the elections offices or at special 'drop boxes' placed around towns in the week leading up to election day,) there is obviously a paper trail. There is always the paper receipt of every vote.

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
  12. Correction on Oregon by afabbro · · Score: 2, Informative
    ...Oregon already have laws requiring paper backups.

    No, Oregon doesn't.

    All voting in Oregon is via mail. There are no voting booths or voting machines of any kind.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
    1. Re:Correction on Oregon by jcenters · · Score: 1

      Well, wouldn't that be the ultimate paper backup?

      --

      vi ~/.emacs

    2. Re:Correction on Oregon by JimMarch(equalccw) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes...BUT there's still two problems:

      1) If somebody doesn't vote for any candidate in a given race, it's easy for somebody at elections HQ to fill in a dot and "choose for them". This was documented in Napa County Calif in the last election via forensic ink analysis in at least 38 cases for a close local race.

      2) There's no independent election monitors making sure people aren't pressured at home or work or whatever to "vote properly" as happened in San Francisco when a city work manager herded his dozen or so employees through the absentee process, looking over their shoulder as they filled out the ballot. Polling places prevent this crap.

    3. Re:Correction on Oregon by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Here's a third problem in Oregon- you can register to vote, and vote, without ever proving that you have the *right* to vote. If you've got two utility bills and are willing to lie about your citizenship on the form, the guy registering you to vote is forbidden from actually asking you about your citizenship. In addition, with vote by mail, you're likely never to be discovered at all.

      Thus, while the law says citizenship is a requirement for voting in Oregon, only residency is actually required.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  13. NH Correction by ThatTallGuy · · Score: 2, Informative
    > New Hampshire, Illinois and Oregon already have laws requiring paper backups.

    Sorry, I believe your information on NH is incorrect also. What goes on in NH with electronic voting machines (they print a filled-out ballot which is then optical-scanned like any other ballot) is policy due to the intervention of the Asst Secretary of State, not law.

    I'm running for State Representative in NH and safe electronic voting is one of my core issues. See www.ThatTallGuy.net.
    --
    ThatTallGuy

  14. Stupid bill by Mycroft_514 · · Score: 1

    You guys are all supposed to be technoligists here and you are overlooking the obvious!

    If you are worried about what the electronic voting machine is recording in memory because it is a closed system, WHAT IS TO PREVENT THE MACHINE FROM RECORDING A VOTE ONE WAY AND PRINTING THE OTHER?

    Sheesh!

    1. Re:Stupid bill by Zeriel · · Score: 1

      Because the record of final appeal is the paper record, not the electronic one. Duh.

      If someone requests a recount, then the electronic records are meaningless and the paper vote is all that matters.

      --
      "America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
    2. Re:Stupid bill by Mycroft_514 · · Score: 1

      And when is someone ever going to use the paper ballot? Never - that's when.

      The paper ballot is supposed to be the record int he case of a "recount". But if someone wanted to cheat, then the vote would never be close.

    3. Re:Stupid bill by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      I don't know if they'll be doing this or not, but this process is supposed to include a number of random audits, and if the paper trail and machines differ by a non-trivial margin, they do a full recount.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    4. Re:Stupid bill by JimMarch(equalccw) · · Score: 1

      In one sense, you're absolutely right - without honest software TOO, this alone ain't enough.

      That's why we also need open source software running on either standard hardware, or publish the firmware source too.

      That's next year's project :). And one we'll have to fight Bill Gates on tooth and nail - there was a Calif bill this year that was just a "non-binding resolution" asking the California Secretary of State to at least start thinking about open source. THAT was fought bitterly by M$, and it was just advisory.

      --------------

      That aside, good paper trails will at least help. Esp. if SB1376 also passes.

      1376 (on Arnold's desk) gives the California SecState the right to review the source code to this stuff (or farm the analysis out to the lab of his choice).

      We also have manual recounts that can happen any of three ways - see my long message at the top level. The idea is, if the manual recounts show something different than the electronic count, the SecState's office can launch an investigation and figure out WTF. If it turns out the difference is due to a "cheat code" (take every 10th vote for bigwig1 and give it to bigwig2 or whatever) somebody gets visited by dudes with guns, handcuffs and bad attitudes.

      That's the theory anyways.

      STILL ain't as good as open source, but we're at least moving in the right direction. Which, given that this is the %$#^$%&^% *government* we're talking about, is a welcome change indeed.

    5. Re:Stupid bill by JimMarch(equalccw) · · Score: 1

      1% on the required manual recounts isn't enough. What you do then is, you hack only a few precincts.

      We've also seen cases where the precincts chosen (in order to get 1% of the total) are NOT chosen randomly by the county elections officials, when the law says it should be. In one case, this was because absentee recounts (on paper) were "harder to do" than meaningless "electronic recounts" on touchscreen machines - so they picked precincts with few absentee voters...as in a handful each tops. Eeeeediots.

      You wouldn't *believe* some of the cluelessness going on at the county level. Ham-fisted newbie idiots with "oooooh, shiny new computers!!!".

      Gawd.

      Like I said: the bill is an improvement, but it is NOT enough.

      Open Freakin' Source!

  15. Right vs. Wrong is better than Republ vs. Democrat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I couldn't be more negative about a bonehead actor being governor, but I think you're on to something here.

    Maybe Arnold is using a common sense view of right and wrong to make decisions. This is far better than politicians (such as Bush and Cheney!) who make decisions with the interests of mainly themselves and their business associates and business supporters in mind.

    For example (hypothetical):

    ARNOLD: "Saddam should be taken down, but with the war on terror heating up it would be irresponsible to go there now"

    BUSH/CHENEY: "If we just lie and say Iraq is part of the war on terror, we can go in and get big contracts for our business partners"

  16. It's too early to make that call by SewersOfRivendell · · Score: 2
    As a California resident who voted for der Gropinator, you'll forgive me if I say that I think the jury is still out. He still has a few years to go, and I'm not necessarily convinced. California's financial mess is not sorted out yet, not even close. The day of reckoning has been postponed, but not eliminated.

    Also, despite his campaign promise to only sit for one term, I find it unlikely that Arnold will be unable to resist attempting reelection, and even the presidency when the GOP comes calling.

    But you never know. God knows he's better than Gray Davis, who sold us out to the power companies for years to come.

  17. Nevada is way ahead here by ElForesto · · Score: 1

    We already demonstrated that printers can be retrofitted cheaply and work somewhat reliably. We haven't had to do a recount yet, so no idea if the process is reliable or not. On that note, however, we don't have Diebold machines either; while I don't know if Sequoia Pacific is any better, I already know that Diebold is pretty much the standard for bad systems.

    --
    There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
  18. Arnold can't run for president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He wasn't born here, the end.

  19. Wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It says the law is effectively dead in your link...so why exactly are you saying repeal it if its already dead? How will that make a difference?

  20. California also taking this election seriously. by Stubtify · · Score: 1
    As a resident I was happy to see our secretary of state not only ban the use of diebold machines but also sue diebold for false claims.

    What does this mean? Well couple it with the paper ballot trail Arney signed today, and California, that hippie liberal, commie state has put a major dent into the problems associated with electronic touchscreen voting. I was holding out to use the new machines, and even though I am registered as a permanent absentee ballot voter, I might change that now that there's a good reason to actually encourage other states to use the systems.

  21. Wait, this Rense article is screwed up! by JimMarch(equalccw) · · Score: 1

    First, the SecState's office is NOT involved in the false claims case. At all.

    The Attorney General *is* involved, but he didn't file it. He finally decided to join in the case, after about 10 freakin' months, 8 of which holding it "sealed" via repeated court-ordered extensions of the seal which started out as only 90 days.

    The "seal" allows the gov't to decide whether or not the false claims act charges are valid without undue political pressure.

    Sigh.

    Whatever. Lockyer DID finally make the right decision and for that I gotta give him credit.

    But the reason I know all this? *I* filed it - in November of '03, along with Bev Harris and our attorney Lowell Finley.

    ------------

    As to Shelley de-certifying some Diebold gear: yes, he got rid of the latest touchscreen model used in four counties (the TSx). He did that because during a series of hearings in April, Diebold lied like a pack of rugs about a variety of issues, and had been caught installing uncertified (read: not code-reviewed like it's supposed to be!) software in ALL 17 of the their customer counties in California as of Nov. '03.

    BUT Shelley left Diebold operating in the state, and using the earlier TS touchscreen in Alameda and Plumas counties. The TSx is just a case mod on the TS; it's smaller and lighter, but has the same firmware and software.

    The April '04 hearings never got into the worst stuff, such as:

    http://www.equalccw.com/deandemo.html

    Do a news-google on my name ("Jim March") and Diebold if you want to see my involvement.