Slashdot Mirror
Election Day Discussion
With the polls now already open in most of the country, this is the official on-topic place for all Slashdot readers to discuss the election itself. And get out and vote if you can. Also, if you haven't noticed, the Slashdot poll shows once and for all where Slashdot readers fall on the election. I'm off to vote in a couple hours. Wonder if we'll have Diebolds in my district.
For meaningful change, the only choice is Michael Badnarik!
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
No. They are talking about old mechanical voting machines. They probably weren't properly zeroed after the last election. This happens all the time, which is why all the machines are checked on election day before the voting begins. Drudge is trying to make an affair out of nothing.
same as parent - submitted but just in case:
Salon's.com election news column, War Room reports that early voters in New Mexico and Texas have already reported serious problems with electronic voting machines. Many computer scientists (aka Slashdot readers) have been very vocal about the potential pitfalls of electronic voting. A group of e-voting experts including Barbara Simons, perhaps the medium's biggest critic, has started a blog to interpret what potential problems might mean as the vote -- and mis-votes -- keep coming in. Are there any Slashdoters who may be interested in this virtual bug hunting/.interpretations?
Just because I don't care, it doesn't mean I don't understand. Homer J. Simpson
doosh? what is that? oh, you meant...
douche Pronunciation (dsh)
(Medicine)
n.
1.
a. A stream of water, often containing medicinal or cleansing agents, that is applied to a body part or cavity for hygienic or therapeutic purposes.
b. A stream of air applied in a similar way.
2. The application of a douche.
3. An instrument for applying a douche.
Noun 1. douche bag - a small syringe with detachable nozzles; used for vaginal lavage and enemas
and also
Douche Bag http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=do
Main Entry: douche bag
Pronunciation: 'düsh 'bAg
Function: noun
Date: circa 1963
slang : 1 One with an undescribeable fucked up-ness hence stupidity, poor idea of what's cool, possibly an arrogance about them. 2 One with an intolerable personality.
Other Forms: Douche, Douchey
Meat heads are douche bags.
Dude, stop being a douche bag.
Dude, stop being a douche.
Dude, that was a douchey move.
* why yes, I have nothing better to do today having already voted for the doosh bag
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
I personally do not think that everyone should be voting. In fact I think a lot of people SHOULDN'T be voting!
Ignorance is rampant and I would rather have an intelligent informed nation choosing their leader based on facts, logic, and rationale rather than emotional responses, self-interest, and personality marketing/propoganda.
The Cato Institute published a report which is here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-525es.html [Cato.org] and it details its findings on the study of voter ignorance. Here is an excerpt:
"Overall, close to one-third of Americans can be categorized as 'know-nothings' almost completely ignorant of relevant political information," writes Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, in "When Ignorance Isn't Bliss: How Political Ignorance Threatens Democracy."
"Most of the time," Somin notes," only bare majorities know which party has control of the Senate, some 70 percent cannot name either of their state's senators and the vast majority cannot name any congressional candidate in their district at the height of a campaign."
Overall, voters tend to be "abysmally ignorant of even very basic political information... the sheer depth of most individual voters' ignorance is shocking to observers not familiar with the research."
A few examples from many in the report:
* The Patriot Act? What's that? Three-fourths of Americans say they know little or nothing about it. 58 percent say they've heard "nothing" or "not much" about it.
* Seventy percent don't know about the $500 billion new drug benefit added this year to Medicare, which Somin describes as "probably the most significant domestic legislation passed during the Bush administration."
* A majority cannot make even a rough estimate of how many Americans soldiers have been killed in Iraq.
* 61 percent believe that there has been a net loss of U.S. jobs in 2004.
* Over 60 per cent don't know that, during President Bush's term, there has been an explosion in domestic spending (about 25 percent above previous levels) that has enormously increased the national debt.
* Last year, 58 percent of Americans could not name a single federal Cabinet department.
And such voter ignorance is, alas, nothing new:
* In 1964, at the height of Cold War tensions, only 38 percent of the public knew that the Soviet Union was not a member of NATO.
* In 1994, after Republicans took control of Congress under the highly-publicized leadership of Rep. Newt Gingrich, 57 percent of Americans said they'd never heard of Gingrich, despite the avalanche of press coverage.
* In 1996, 67 percent couldn't name their congressman, and only 26 percent knew that senators serve six-year terms.
* In the 2002 elections, only 32 percent of voters knew that the Republican Party controlled the House.
In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Mass ignorance is easy to exploit and sway opinions based on nothing more than emotions.
And in conclusion I say that if you do not truly understand the issues, have a good concept of how the government and the world works, and grasp the ideals and principles of what this government was founded on and it's history - then stay the hell out of the voting booth!
Libertas in infinitum
Stop spreading disinformation. According to all major news sources (CNN just did a piece on the Philadelphia story), the votes on the machines in question are from previous elections and have no bearing on the votes for this election. They are just resident in memory.
The GOP are the ones who are trying to get these machines replaced -- not the Democrats.
Moderators: The Dupe is because I hit submit before I added my html tags. Sorry amigos.
.. 5.7 billion people in the world. ... and on and on.
One half trillion dollars will be spent in Iraq according to the Congressional Budget Office. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University estimate we have 100,000 dead Iraqis on our hands. 16.7% of our soldiers will bare this incredible burden in psych wards according to The New England Journal of Medicine, assuming theyre not dead. And today, 1,122 Americans will not vote because they couldnt escape the American torture chamber that is Iraq. Tomorrow a few more will die and several more will be added to the 7,532 people that were serious injured in Iraq, so do not forget this when you vote.
Kerry's not my favorite, but today he represents everything the republican party would offer traditionally and more!
(1) He's fiscally conservative
(2) He's socially liberal (no bigotry here!)
(3) He's environmentally friendly
(4) His foreign policy acknowledges the other
(5) He's actually aware of national security
Now, let the flame war begin!
That's very interesting considering the lists released by the Clinton administration don't even show Arafat as ever having stayed at the White House. For reference:
First term list of guests
Guests from 1999 through August 2000 (you'll have to click the link in the article to see the list)
Your source to back your claim?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Call the toll free voter alert line: 1-866-MYVOTE1
Did he inhale?
This site does not represent all Iraqis. It's just a site set up by an American guy called Steven Moore (he worked for the American occupation administration). He clearly if not pro-Bush agenda, then clear job description as a USA-paid PR guy. So the site has some blatant lies and a lot of creative distortion of facts.
Read more about it in this Indimedia article: The truth about "thetruthaboutiraq.org".
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Ignorance can be astounding sometimes...
1. Sure, experience in other offices helps, but a 3rd party candidate shooting for high offices will always lose in an entrenched 2 party system.
2. Badnarik may not have held an office with a little name sign on his door, but has been studying the US constitution for over 22 years now. In fact, he teaches an 8 hour class on the constitution, which is available online for your viewing pleasure. He's been teaching it now for at least 4 years, but possibly more. I bet senator Kerry and presient Bush couldn't even tell you what article of the US constitution describes their position, much less what it actually says their powers are.
I could go on, but it's not worth my time. Libertarians actually go after a lot of this country's problems from the fundamental root, rather than using broad sweeping generalizations like "a safer america is what we want".
my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
After reading the constitution yet again, it looks as though voting is more of a privilege then a right.
Look at it closely.
The only reasons they cannot deny you the right to vote are
1. due to race, color, or previous condition of servitude (Article XV) - Hmmmm and felons can't vote (look at Article XIII which seems to equate your sentence with involuntary servitude).
2. due to gender (Article XIX). Yay women can vote.
3. Failure to pay your taxes (Amendment XXIV)
and 4. Due to age, as long as your are oder then 18 (Amendment XXVI).
So except for those reasons you can lose your right to vote.
Use it while you've got it, it's the only way to keep it.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
As an explanation to our non-US observers: It may seem odd to have to list your party affiliation. The main reason for this is to determine who can vote in which "primary" election, where Republicans chose the Republican candidate (Bush), and Democrats chose the Democratic candidate (Kerry), earlier this year. You can also state an "independent" affiliation, in which case you may not vote in the primary election but can vote in (today's) general election. No matter what affiliation you state, you can vote for any candidate (or no candidate) in the general election.
I know you are joking but in a few countries, including my home country Turkey, they use a special ink to mark the right index finger.
The ink does not come off for about a week, no matter what you apply to it.
Agreed. And it's the same up here. It doesn't matter if you PAID your taxes, it matters that Revenue Canada has your address and sent you you tax form (this info is shared with Elections Canada to create the voter's list, which is shared for all elections - federal, provincial or municipal).
That's it.
And if that isn't right or you don't pay taxes (like University students), you simply show up to the polling station in your riding with some documentation as to your identity and proof that you live in the riding - like a lease agreement, a phone, cable, sewer bill etc (even a Visa statment is acceptable, as long as it has you name and adress on it and you have another form of picture ID that proves you are the person on the bill).
Very simple and verey effective.
We also mark an X on a paper ballot, which is then scanned so we get both electronic counting and paper ballots in the event of a recount. And we usually know the winner of the Election the night of the election (In 2000, our government called an election, had a 36 day campaign, voted and declared the winner and started back to business between the time of your election and the date the Supreme Court appointed GWB).
Just an FYI that Canada is not some draconian place. We have a pretty effective democracy up here.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
According to the Des Moines Register poll out late Saturday evening, 27 percent of Iowa adults have already voted. And among those Kerry leads 52 percent to 41 percent.
relevent links:
Salon War Room Report
Gallup Poll original data (I think this is the correct data set)
USA Today story
All news stories merely mention this in passing.....
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
(Deep breath. I'm about to do something totally insane--try to present a rational, factual explanation of a political subject on SlashDot. Maybe its because I've been eating nothing but red M&Ms all day....)
IAMPAEO--BIHBO
I Am Not Presently An Election Official--But I Have Been One. And I can promise you, with all sincerity, that the margin of error is effectively zero. We count every single ballot, whether on the voting machines or in absentee ballots, regardless of how late we have to stay up to do it. The people in your county registrar's office total up all of the ballots from the polling places, and keep checking and re-checking until they have it right. The math is done in front of representatives from all political parties, as well as any candidate-appointed watchers that are present as well. When the election results are certified, the results are correct--with an error rate of zero.
Oh, c'mon. What about...
I have been an election official for more than fifteen years--and I have been involved in counting votes on Election night in heavily Democratic wards, and in heavily Republican wards. It does not matter--we get the vote total correct, and we turn it in to the county. Then the county re-checks our work--and they carefully preserve the voting machines until they're convinced we have done the work correctly. (One year, back in the 1980s, the county had questions about one of our voting machines and called the officials back in later in the week to make sure they understood what we'd done.)
Don't confuse the results announced on TV with the certified election
I have also done consulting work with the Elections Unit of a major TV network. They have an entirely different agenda: their goal is to "call" the election for one candidate or the other before any other media outlet. They are basing their "calls" on exit-polling data ("pardon me, ma'am, but could you tell me who you voted for?") in a handful of selected precincts across a state. They will report preliminary totals ("And we now see Governor Bloviate leading with 1,424,325 votes with 21% of precincts reporting...") without explaining the context (are those Bloviate's strong precincts? Who says the numbers are correct?) They're out to report fast, accuracy be damned. (Sorry, Charlie, but that's the way it really is.)
The real story, the real vote total, comes when the election is certified. And the "chaos" that we all saw in Florida was the actual process of certifying an election. There were flaws (the biggest: they hadn't defined any rules for how to count votes)--but they eventually arrived at a standard, and used that standard to count votes. They ended up with a total. That's the final number.
All that said....
The total vote count will be determined with a level of error of zero. What will not be determined--and what I fear will be rampant in this election, on both sides--is how many votes were fraudulent, due to duplicate registrations, absentee ballot fraud, etc.
So why didn't CNN link to the Full transcript of bin Ladin's speech? Perhaps because CNN is still desperately trying to spin a story they didn't fully report on in the first place.
Um, most people in the world use the word "democracy" to mean "representative democracy"
A republic run by representative democracy is not an oxymoron. (A republic can be democratic or non-democratic).
Democratic* republics: USA, Ireland, France
Non-democratic republics: Syria, Belorussia
In turn a democracy can be a republic or not a republic.
(*By "democratic" I mean a representative democratic government - people drop the representative because it is a pain to write it out when every serious non-pedantic person knows what they are talking about already).
[We don't come from a planet. We come from a grid sector.]
"Documented cases of civilians killed by the US is up around 15,000. [iraqbodycount.net, etc]"
Exactly my point. This is nowhere near 100,000.
Sorry, but that's not entirely true. The numbers on IraqBodyCount.net are fully-backed media documented numbers about specific incidents with specific casualties. That means that, out of the thousands of civillians killed during the war in Iraq, we have hard and fast proof about that many, right now, with zero additional time spent gathering information.
The 100,000+ number is a reasonable guesss about the actual numbers of casualties, inclulding those who didn't specifically make the fscking international news.
Sheesh.
I don't know if a 6:1 ratio of casualties to media-reported specific casualties is correct, but it seems reasonable. It seems a whole lot more reasonable than a 1:1 ratio which is, I believe, what you're choosing to go with.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
When I went to vote this morning we had the Diebold system. This is Montclair, CA.
They handed me a smart card, and I put card in and made my selections.
When came to the end I went to select the "cast ballot" button it returned a message "Are you sure you want to proceed, you haven't made all the selections you are entitled to."
OK?? So I went back and double checked everything. I definatly had voted on everything there was to vote on. Spent about 10 Minutes in all checking and rechecking.
I had to hit the "Cast Ballot" to finish and return my card.
So when I finished I complain to the manager there, and they said it's seems to happen every so often, we don't know what's the reason.
They really didn't know anything about these system, or what they could do about errors or problems.
So I walked away wondering if some of my votes were just dropped or something.
I mean as a programmer this system really made me feel incredably unconfortable as to it's reliablity, accuracy and security.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso