Monitoring the U.S. Elections Online?

shahman wonders: "I'll be on the road all day this election day, so the only access I'll have is through my PDA/Phone. I was wondering if any Slashdot readers know of WAP-enabled services or low-bandwidth sites that are providing (semi) real-time election coverage?" Nobbin has a similar, but less bandwidth-restrictive question: "I was wondering where I could find live results for the coming U.S. election, online. I live in Australia so I can't get them through watching CNN and so forth. I'm looking for something similar to the Austalian Electoral Commission's virtual tally room. So far, Google hasn't turned up much."

Comments

Monitoring is not the same as influencing...

[NotQuiteReal]

Just look in a paper, on Wednesday.

This same technique of delayed gratification has served me well for lots of things.

The resultes don't change by knowing them sooner.

Are you serious?

[bscott]

I personally wish I could just crawl into a cave and leaving a wake-up call for inaguration day. I can't IMAGINE wanting to keep up with the minute-by-minute details of what'll doubtless be only the beginning of a weeks-long debacle. Put it another way - do you really need to go out of your way to get "information" of questionable relevance a few seconds before you would anyway? It's the Presidential election, you'd have to be pretty careful NOT to find out about anything really significant.

Relax. Get a book-on-tape of something you've always wanted to read for your journey. Use the time wisely instead of suckling at the mass-media tit because they've told you that you MUST be INFORMED every MINUTE of the DAY, by US!

Re:Are you serious?

[dghcasp]

I can't IMAGINE wanting to keep up with the minute-by-minute details...

There's a bunch of people out there who like to watch sports; personally, I can't understand why. It's not like it means anything, and you can find out the results the next day. How exactly is a bunch of millionaires who weren't born in your city beating another bunch of millionaires who weren't born in their city a personal victory for you?

Some of us feel about politics the way others feel about sports.

Re:Why?

[marktaw.com]

Because the elections are a spectator sport just like the World Series.

It's just not the same without knowing in real time with commentary and slow motion replays.

Re:try CNN

[Sputum]

I don't think the reporters being honest matters when the ballot counters aren't.

better yet,

[twitter]

try http://www.dibold.com/super/secret/backdoor/videop oker/election/666/

The user is "admin" and the password is "password". Just set the winner by state and percentage. There are a few bugs that make things unpredictable, however. Now that you know, I'm going to have to kill you.

I only wish that I was joking. Try this on for size:

The central servers are installed on unpatched, open Windows computers and use RAS (Remote Access Server) to connect to the voting machines through telephone lines. Since RAS is not adequately protected, anyone in the world, even terrorists, who can figure out the server's phone number can change vote totals without being detected by observers. The passwords in many locations are easily guessed, and the access phone numbers can be learned through social engineering or war dialing.

Unpatched Winblows, RAS, modems? Un-#######-believable!

Re:better yet,

[digitaltraveller]

Why is this comment moderated as funny? It is child's play to 0wn an unpatched windows box and RAS itself has several known vulnerabilities.

Pray that your side has better hackers.

Frankly, after 2000 the mere existence of the insecure electronic voting issue is a disgrace.

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
--Thomas Jefferson

Re:Australia has the Fox News Channel!

[0utlaw]

Uhh...Fox News is owned by an Aussie, Rupert Murdoch. So don't generalize and label Americans as stupid just as I'm not generalizing and labelling all Australians as conservative propagandists.

Informed decisions

[SeanDuggan]

I was once one of those people who advocated everyone voting, even to the point of those vans that drove along and offered to transport people to the polls. But now, having heard some peoples' rationales for their voting choices, I urge greater caution in who should vote. If you're not educated on the issues and where the politicians stand, don't vote. If you plan to vote a straight ticket because that's what your parents voted, don't vote. If you plan to vote a straight ticket because it's not what your parents vote, don't vote. If your reasoning for voting for a candidate is based upon his good looks, don't vote. (You laugh now, but I know several girls in high school who voted for Clinton because they thought he was the more good-looking candidate) Don't vote a certan way because it's how your church/school/workplace/therapy group has told you to vote.

In short, if you are making an informed decision on the ballot, by all means vote away. If not, please leave democracy in the hands of those who are competent to vote. Thank you.