Slashdot Mirror
Computer Problems Already Affecting Florida Voters
TAGmclaren writes "The Sun-Sentinel is reporting on computer glitches already affecting the election in - you guessed it - Florida. Of the 14 early voting sites that opened in Broward County on Monday morning, 9 were reporting problems. In Orlando County, the touch screens crashed. More generally, SFgate.com is keeping track of all voting issues across the country - including lawsuits and other ballot problems." Update: 10/19 03:38 GMT by T : Thanks to reader Dale J. Russell for pointing out that "there is no Orlando County. The city of Orlando, Florida resides in Orange County."
why was the touch screen system connected to the internet?
"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
These problems have been known for a long time, and the apathy about them in the news media is simply astounding. A brief web search will give you an idea how widespread the problems are, and how well known they are, yet little has been done. Why do you think that is? Well, elections are run by the states, particularly by each state's Secretary of State. That's an elected position. Guess which party the Secretary of State in most of the problem states is a member of?
Maybe it just guarantees that all voting machines will be obsolete by the next election, forcing an upgrade path that Diebold hopes they will have the contract for. But, then again, maybe I'm just getting too cynical in my old age.
The point is, there are software practices than can be used to ensure the damn stuff is reliable enough to be used in something as vital as voting. Like writing multiple versions of the code and making sure the results are identical. Like not putting it on top of an overcomplicated OS. Like extreme peer review, including open sourcing the stuff. Any case where voting software goes into production with a line of code which someone has 'forgotten to comment out' is a case where the voting software is not up to standard by a long long way.
I'm confused by this flip flop mantra that republicans keep chanting. Surely changing your position on an issue in the face of new evidence is a "Good Thing". It implies an open mind and critical thinking, whereas sticking doggedly to a position that has since been shown to be wrong is just stupid.
For example, on the Iraq war vote, Kerry voted for the war on the basis of the evidence made available by Bush. We now know that the evidence for war was wrong, incomplete and selectively chosen by a broken system. If you believed the evidence that was presented at the time then voting for war was the only option (as it happens I didn't believe the evidence, but that is a freedom a popularly elected official doesn't really have if he wants to be re-elected). In the light of new evidence it appears that the case for war was not based in fact, but speculation (if you're feeling generous towards Bush), or greed (if you're being less generous). Faced with the new information I would be deeply concerned if someone did not change their point of view. It is a deeply valid thing to do.
Making a decision on the best available information is a good thing. Making a decision on ideological grounds and the selecting evidence to support your position is not a good thing.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine