Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Evoting Problems in Ohio

Posted by michael on from the what-me-worry dept.

deus_X_machina writes "The Columbus Dispatch is reporting that a computer error involving one voting-machine cartridge gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in a Gahanna precinct. Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, says the cartridge was retested yesterday and there were no problems. He couldn't explain why the computer reader malfunctioned."

223 of 288 comments (clear)

  1. Let The Games Begin by wcb4 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'msure this is only the first of many, many such stories we wil hear.... No paper audit trail in many places. fun fun fun

    --
    I reject your reality ... and substitute my own.
    1. Re:Let The Games Begin by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      Yea, I can not begin to understand what state officials thought buying products with no voting trail was a good idea..

      --
    2. Re:Let The Games Begin by Phillup · · Score: 1

      That would be the perfect kind of system for those already in charge.

      No matter their affiliation.

      --

      --Phillip

      Can you say BIRTH TAX
    3. Re:Let The Games Begin by WarPresident · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'msure this is only the first of many, many such stories we wil hear.... No paper audit trail in many places. fun fun fun

      I'm sure that for each of these stories reported, 5 or more go unreported/undiscovered.

      6 out of 10 voters to my precinct were not listed in the roll book at the polling place. Many of these people were long time voters, all were given provisional ballots. Their names and signatures were on the master list, but magically never made it to the polling place. The reason? A "mistake," and in a predominately Democratic area, by a predominately Republican elections board. Hmmm. Maybe I'm reading too much into that, my name was on the list, although I'm not registered as a Democrat...

      Hey, but what does it matter at this point? Election's over, and there's a few countries to run. With Republicans in charge of everything, America should be on track to Bush's ideal. Let the good times roll!

      --
      Here come da fudge!
    4. Re:Let The Games Begin by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Interesting article, for those who don't wish to read, it basically states that Ohio still used punch cards and there were thousands with overvotes and undervotes and hanging chads and all that crap that got thrown out.

      Article goes on to suggest that most all of these must be for the Democrats. Either way election is over recount wasn't asked for, laws need to be changed. Oh well.

    5. Re:Let The Games Begin by elhaf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Open Voting is the place to actually do something about this rather than just whine. They need money to stay alive, and they have a simple Paypal button. Put your ten bucks where your mouths are, people.

      --
      Six score characters.
      Brevity being wit's soul
      I have enough space.
    6. Re:Let The Games Begin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Here's another one.

      "Many of the calls to our hotline were from voters who had pressed the Kerry button on their electronic voting screen, only to have Bush light up as the candidate they had chosen. In some cases, this would happen repeatedly until about the 5th or 6th time the voter pressed Kerry and eventually his name would light up. In other cases, the voters pushed Kerry but were later asked to confirm their Bush vote."

    7. Re:Let The Games Begin by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Not required in Ohio until 2006. So why should they care?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    8. Re:Let The Games Begin by glowimperial · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the key problem with easy to tamper with, difficult to audit voting systems, is that it makes it difficult to trust the results of any election.

      Remember, the electors have not yet cast their votes, we are in the wierd area between the votes to choose electors and the actual election of the president. I woulnd't be suprised to see more of this same kind of issue coming up in the coming weeks. This does not make me feel comfortable with the electoral process in general, regardless of the outcome.

    9. Re:Let The Games Begin by efatapo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This needs to be said at the top of this thread because noone reads the articles:

      Source - Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Bush's total should have been recorded as 365.

      Franklin is the only Ohio county to use Danaher Controls Inc.'s ELECTronic 1242, an older-style touchscreen voting system. Danaher did not immediately return a message for comment.

    10. Re:Let The Games Begin by El · · Score: 1, Troll
      With Republicans in charge of everything,America should be on track to Bush's ideal.

      Which is exactly what I'm afraid of, since as near as I can tell Bush's ideal is to do everything possible to bring about the Battle of Armegeddon. Imagine his shock when he is not magically removed from the Earth by "The Rapture", and he has to endure the consequences of his actions with the rest of us sinners...

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    11. Re:Let The Games Begin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Exit polls have been very reliable throughout history, until evoting came along.

      In this case, the exit polls were wrong everywhere electronic voting was used. They were pretty accurate in places with paper voting and audit trails.

      Furthermore, in every single case where the exit polls were wrong, the final results favored Bush. Statistically implausible, to say the least.

      Check out these graphs.

      If these are right, Kerry should've won the election easily, just like everyone was predicting because of the huge voter turnout (which has always been bad for the incumbent)

      Unfortunately, this will never be proven conclusively, since there are no paper trails for a recount.

    12. Re:Let The Games Begin by mrs.+adoarns · · Score: 1

      Remember, Sideshow Bob didn't get away with it when he ran against Quimby. A lot of Republicans are proud assholes who think they're invincible, only to fall flat on their faces!

    13. Re:Let The Games Begin by beaverbrother · · Score: 1

      Well the best way to make sure that they don't go undescovered is to look at the election results in each county for inconsistancies.

    14. Re:Let The Games Begin by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      You happen to live in Saginaw? There were a lot of people being turned away because the pollers claimed they weren't on the list. There were unhappy crowds at a couple sites well after midnight, and the police ended up escorting a lot of people into polling sites and checking the lists themselves. Of course, nearly all the people turned away were on the lists. Several presincts were telling people they were supposed to vote at other locations when they weren't, and refusing to allow them to vote. As a side-note, in an attempt to add injury to insult, the pro-life people were putting bumper stickers on people's windshields, and I was late for work trying to scrape them off so I could see (They put them at head-level, centered over the steering wheel, so I couldn't drive without getting them off).

    15. Re:Let The Games Begin by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's an old trick political machines have used for decades. Usually it's the other side who puts a sticker on windshields for their opponent's cause. So most likely, it was a pro-choice group who put that sticker on your window, to get you pissed off enough to vote their way.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    16. Re:Let The Games Begin by ifwm · · Score: 1

      You're a liar. You have no idea how many people were not listed, you're just making shit up. Maybe it was a lot, but 60%? How do you know that? Don't bother to answer because you can't know that. Do us all a favor and knock that silliness off.

    17. Re:Let The Games Begin by WarPresident · · Score: 1

      I can only go by my own observation from standing in line for an hour and a half, the observation of people I know who voted there throughout the day, what my coworker's friend, an intern at the county board of elections said, and an op-ed article flaming the election board in the local paper.

      --
      Here come da fudge!
    18. Re:Let The Games Begin by flibuste · · Score: 1

      Les Francais sont des singes de capitulation qui mangent du fromage.

      Mod me flamebait AND troll please, but allow me that one for that stupid sig

      Les francais t'emmerdent
  2. Big fucking deal by jpmkm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As the article says, that's why election-night results are unofficial. They don't just count these things once and then throw them away. It's already been corrected, so it's not even a problem. blah blah blah well what if it wasn't detected blah blah blah. That is a valid concern, but posting this article on slashdot is just flaimbait.

    1. Re:Big fucking deal by dtfinch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would it be a better idea not to publicize these sorts of inconsistencies?

    2. Re:Big fucking deal by jpmkm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wouldn't be so quick to call this an inconsistency. It is simply a glitch that would have been corrected by the normal operating procedure had someone not noticed it. The count was unofficial for a reason. They verify the count for a reason - to catch mistakes like this. If every part of the system was infallible then checks would not be necessary and the preliminary count would be official. I don't care for Bush, but I'm not about to cry about every little mistake in the procedure. The system is designed to correct these mistakes.

    3. Re:Big fucking deal by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is a valid concern, but posting this article on slashdot is just flaimbait

      This is flamebait? Why the hell is this flamebait? A voting machine messes up and that's not news? Would you still think it was flamebait if the error had given Kerry 3,800 extra votes? Or is it only flamebait when we wonder why a Republican running for office gained votes from a glitch?

      The only thing that's flamebait is your post.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Big fucking deal by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The system is designed to correct these

      That doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about them [mistakes] or consider them newsworthy.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Big fucking deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      That is a valid concern, but posting this article on slashdot is just flaimbait.

      Hell, posting anything on slashdot is flamebait.

    6. Re:Big fucking deal by xutopia · · Score: 2, Insightful
      yeah who cares whether or not the votes count. It's much better to save face and make it sound like all is right. After all it's only democracy.

      It's the same argument that priests used to protect other priests when there was sexual abuse.

    7. Re:Big fucking deal by jpmkm · · Score: 1

      Who said there's no paper trail? I didn't even see any mention of what specific machines were used. How do you know?

    8. Re:Big fucking deal by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I think this is probably why the poster said this was flaimbait. Say the machines messed up, and a lot of people jump to the conclusion that there was foul play. Given the political division of America, I think it may have been more responsible to report, "The machines messed up giving one of the candidates more votes. For now, we're not reporting which one." I don't think it's really appropriate for a journalist to suppress such information as "who the votes went for", but I'm also not sure the information does us much good, especially without explanation.

      Truth is, both parties have been stupidly pushing for these machines, and someone from either party could hack them. It's probably also true, with all the information that's come out about how easy these things are to hack, at least one machine somewhere got hacked. It's also true that inconsistancies pop up here and there without foul play, and I'm not convinced these machines are bug-free enough to be fully trusted even if we assume no hacking.

      All the more reason for a paper-trail. Personally, I've been pushing for some system that not-only has a paper-trail, but one where the printout is visable (perhaps behind glass?) so that voters can verify by sight that the printout matches their vote (if they choose to pay attention). Personally, I'd also like to see something in the system that corrolates each recorded vote with a voter, ensuring that a hacker can't get the machine to log and print extra phantom votes.

      Either way, that these machines appear to be unreliable should, undoubtedly, be reported. However, hyping up the fact that this may have benefitted Bush is just going to fan the flames here. (And keep in mind that 'may have', since we don't know how many irregularities there were, which ones benefitted Bush, which Kerry, or whether the irregularities were large enough anywhere to change the outcome of the election.) It increases the perception by liberals that "Bush stole the election again" and increases the perception by conservatives that "Liberals are going to whine about every ridiculous unsubstantiated claim whenever they don't get their way." But you know what? Unless you have something resembling evidence, it won't change anything. Hence-- flamebait.

    9. Re:Big fucking deal by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      This is just an outlet for slashdotters to complain about Bush and I consider that to be flamebait.

      Because it's not like Slashdot bothered to cover any of the e-voting problems years before the presidental election.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:Big fucking deal by almiki · · Score: 1

      What's not clear to me is HOW they would have caught the mistake eventually. Was it just the fact that there were way more Bush votes than there even were voters? If so, maybe this kind of thing really would go totally unnoticed in bigger counties.

    11. Re:Big fucking deal by jpmkm · · Score: 1

      How is that not clear? Read the article. It specifically says that the overage was a malfunction of the equipment, and upon rechecking the equipment, the number of votes was correct. Although this rechecking was done because someone noticed that there could not possibly be that many votes for Bush, as the article states, this rechecking is standard operating procedure for all equipment before an official count is determined.

    12. Re:Big fucking deal by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      It's nice to see an objective response on /. for a change.

      I agree almost completly with your whole post. I admitably did not read the article but I think we need a little more information than what is in the summary. I think it boarders on flamebait.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    13. Re:Big fucking deal by gotih · · Score: 4, Insightful

      glitch, inconsistency, what fuckin' ever...

      regardless of who you voted for, this is fucking serious and your downplaying it really bothers me.

      most of these voting machines were built by the lowest bidder using off the shelf hardware running WinCE and access. that's fine for a kiosk display or even an ATM with insured transactions but when we are talking about democracy, the fundamental decision making process of our government, we deserve something more secure and advanced. we deserve nothing less than an open-source solution, peer-reviewed and tested.

      it makes me want to bring my stun gun to the polls and see how the machine registers a vote for 500,000 volts...

      --

      fear is the mind killer
    14. Re:Big fucking deal by jpmkm · · Score: 1

      Of course it is a serious issue. That is why they double-check everything. I don't see anything in the article that states that the voting machines involved use off the shelf hardware and wince. Would you mind pointing it out for me?

    15. Re:Big fucking deal by gotih · · Score: 1

      relying on double checking to catch errors is not an acceptable procedure. double checking should be an excersize which absolutely proves that the primary results were correct (there should NEVER be errors with properly designed evoting machines -- their function is outrageously simple). the second check must be more reliable than simply comparing the results stored on removable and non-removable memory (something is SERIOUSLY fucked up if the results are different and the manufacturer should face a major lawsuit). these machines must have a paper reciept, kept at the machine, printed in a human and machine readable format, which provides the voter immediate, direct confirmation of their vote. when the election is over the paper reciept is tallied by machine and compared to the results stored in machine's memory.

      you're right, the article doesn't say anything about the voting machines, not even who made them (do you even have to go to journalism school anymore).

      Jim March has a bunch of info on diebold machines, including that they run WinCE and ms access. anyone with some experience as a secretary could fire up access and change the numbers. yes, that's an over simplification but the results aren't digitally encrypted or signed. they are not tamper-proof.

      this was the first popular mechanics article i read in years (they are usually short on the substance). it has a comparison of the diebold acuvote and the sequoia avc dge machines. the sequoia machine has a paper ballot option which only nevada is using (their voting systems had to clear the scrutiny of the nevada gaming control board's electronic services division). the pop sci article also brings up the fact that we have trusted, tamperproof, anonymous electronic systems with bar code reciepts -- the state lottery systems. but none of the e-voting manufacturers have a lottery pedigree.

      --

      fear is the mind killer
    16. Re:Big fucking deal by gotih · · Score: 1

      the only evoting machines with a paper trail are in nevada.

      quit posting to slashdot and start googling. we are not your mothers, you are old enough to hold your own spoon.

      --

      fear is the mind killer
    17. Re:Big fucking deal by Markus+Landgren · · Score: 2, Funny

      Score: 5, Fair and Balanced

    18. Re:Big fucking deal by demachina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It is simply a glitch"

      God isn't beautiful to have computers in the voting process so anytime something fishy happens everyone, especially the media, can write it off as a "glitch". Everyone knows computers have "glitches" so everyone nods and says it must have been a "glitch". Say no more.

      Maybe it was a glitch, though maybe it was a "glitch" in an attempt to rig an election. Someone tried to throw a bunch of votes to Bush and screwed up so badly it stuck out like a sore thumb. So what exactly is stopping the same kind of "glitch" happening elsewhere but it didn't stick out like a sore thumb, went unnoticed, and just produced a few extra percentage points for Bush.

      In a few posts here there are people saying they "know" their man one. Well when it comes to elections you never know for sure. If unbiased exit polls and official returns show your candidate won you have some confidence. When raw exit polls show your candidate didn't win and the actual results say he did you should presume there is a chance, though only a chance, the election was rigged. Exit polls, if done fairly and independently, are the only realiable gauge we have of the legitimacy of the election. They are polls and they have margins of error but they are the best of polls since they poll large numbers of actual voters. Its amazing that exit polls have since 2000, when the Republicans started seizing power, either consistently disagreed with election results or as in 2002 mysteriously, completely failed denying us an independent snapshot of the legitimacy of the election, and election very much in dispute in Georgia in particular. This year they consistently showed Kerry winning the swing states in contradiction to the official returns, and then in the middle of the night the exit polls were "adjusted" so they would just match the official returns.

      It is important to not fixate on Diebold or even electronic voting in this. Every vote casting method is vulnerable to manipulation. In punch cards its as easy as sending defective cards to Democratic precincts so you get more hanging chads, or "accidentally" knock out an extra chad so they are discarded as double votes. "Spoilage" is a widely recognized tool for manipulating punch card elections.

      Before anyone goes in to denial that election rigging might happen in the U.S. just remember it has happened in the U.S., the Nixon Kennedy race being one of the more memorable cases by the Democrats. Rigging happens around the world, all the time, in fact is more the norm than the exception in many places.

      It should be remembered most dictators either acquire or hold power under the pretense of fair elections that aren't fair. The CIA has for most of its existence specialized in installing regime's friendly to America's interests using election rigging. If a dictatorship ever does rise in America, though I'm not saying it has, it is far more likely it will come through rigged elections than it will an armed coup.

      When there is vast power and wealth hanging in the balance of an election presume those vying for that power WILL entertain rigging the election if they think they can get away with it. The only brake on them is we citizens have to be extremely vigilant and persistent in catching them and denying them the possibilities, and there are thousands of different ways to steal elections.

      --
      @de_machina
  3. This only gets interesting by hey! · · Score: 1

    if you multiply the number of precincts 30x or 40x.

    Everybody knows the evoting machines are shit.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:This only gets interesting by BlueCup · · Score: 2, Informative

      The interesting thing is that if just a few, say 20, votes were changed on every machine, it'd be enough to make a huge difference, and no one would be the wiser.

      --
      WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
  4. Re:Good god by Bobo_The_Boinger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think the article is really concerned with WHO the extra votes were for, it is just indicating that there are problems with a electronic voting system that does not include paper trails to provide a more reliable count. The article is trying to indicate that we should not just blindly trust electronic machines, and I agree with them. Whether the extra votes were for Bush or Kerry is beside the point really.

    --
    --David
  5. Re:Slashdot Slant by dtfinch · · Score: 1

    If you find any such stories of equal magnitude, be sure to let us know.

  6. Re:Slashdot Slant by drightler · · Score: 1

    Sure... as soon as the liberal media reports such an event, I'll get right on it. :)

    --

    blah blah blah....
    drightler@technicalogic.com
  7. Re:Slashdot Slant by hawkbug · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, whatever - Fox news would have been all over a story about Kerry getting extra votes, so don't fucking call the media "liberal" because there is more than one media outlet, and they slant both ways.

  8. Re:Slashdot Slant by moof1138 · · Score: 1

    FWIW, you are allowed to use the conservative media too.

    --

    Hyperbole is the worst thing ever.
  9. Re:Good god by doodlelogic · · Score: 1

    Indeed; and a further point is that an error does not matter so much if it is random, but if it can only favour one candidate rather than the other. Therefore it is key to track down the cause of the error.

  10. Well, yes by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

    but that requires intent, not just incompetence.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Well, yes by zCyl · · Score: 1

      And http://www.blackboxvoting.org is looking for donations to investigate this. Please contribute.

  11. Re:Slashdot Slant by drightler · · Score: 1

    I might be treading into the realm of flaimbait here, but I will proceed anyway. The reporter for this story found out about the miscount somehow and my bet is that it was a Democrat that tipped him off. Had it been a miscount in Kerry's favor a Democrat wouldn't tip a reporter off and, at least in my experience, neither would a Republican. A republican would have nothing to gain, their candidate already won. On the total reversal, if Kerry had won, a Replublican STILL wouldn't have tipped a reporter off.. at least in my opinion. This is simply because, as Democrat friends of mine have said, "Democrats are whiners.".

    YMMV and all that jazz.

    --

    blah blah blah....
    drightler@technicalogic.com
  12. How was the correct count derived? by werfele · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From the article:
    When workers checked the cartridge against memory banks in the voting machine yesterday, each showed that 115 people voted for Bush on that machine. With the other two machines, the total for Bush in the precinct added up to 365 votes.
    I'm not sure I understand this. I'm guessing they actually got the number by subtracting the count for Kerry, the count 3rd party presidential candidates, and the count for no presidential vote from the known number of total voters. But doesn't the Bush number indicate that any results from this machine can't be trusted?
    1. Re:How was the correct count derived? by ugmoe · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yesterday, they rechecked the removable cartridge and got 115 Bush votes.

      Yesterday, they checked the non-removable memory banks in the voting machine and to 115 Bush votes.

      Since the non-removable memory banks matched the removable cardridge, they used that as the offical Bush vote from the machine.

      The other 2 machines had a total of 250 Bush votes.

      Adding 250 to 115 gives 365 Bush votes total for the precinct.

  13. Exactly by AoT · · Score: 1

    Do you really think there is no intent to steal votes during an election? On both sides.

    --
    A blog about stuff.
    1. Re:Exactly by Tanktalus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you saying that there is no intent to steal votes by Nader? :-)

    2. Re:Exactly by AoT · · Score: 1

      Nader had intent to get registered in enough states to win. If he ever gets to the point where he has a chance in hell of winning even one state then he might intend to steal votes, until then I can trust the highminded principles of someone who will never win.

      --
      A blog about stuff.
  14. Re:Slashdot Slant by AoT · · Score: 1

    Then why do republicans whine so much about "the liberal media"?

    --
    A blog about stuff.
  15. Desire != intent by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Personally, I would love to be a diebold programmer who was tasked with stealing this election.

    My statement would go into a pair of safe deposit boxes controlled by attorneys with secret instructions to open the contents and make them public if they don't hear from me in 180 days.

    I'd have Diebold by the balls.

    This is why it would be stupid to try to steal the election this way. It's too hard to keep secret.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Desire != intent by AoT · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you have been keeping up on the diebold machines you would know that it doesn't take a diebold programmer to steal the election. It only takes someone with access to the machines, and not even that in some cases.

      --
      A blog about stuff.
    2. Re:Desire != intent by Kwil · · Score: 1

      Or.. they'd have you by the balls.
      After all.. you did it.
      And if anybody asks, you did it on your own.

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    3. Re:Desire != intent by zenyu · · Score: 1


      My statement would go into a pair of safe deposit boxes controlled by attorneys with secret instructions to open the contents and make them public if they don't hear from me in 180 days.

      I'd have Diebold by the balls.

      A disgruntled former employee claims ...

      No one would listen, and the order would never be made in writing.

      Now the CEO would have credibility, and would need to be passed a few thousand C-notes. This is just a matter of giving his company some contracts, and it is even legal for the federal government to give contracts to political supporters, so he can even channel some of that taxpayer money back into your pocket.

    4. Re:Desire != intent by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree. However, the same argument applies: to do it on a widespread basis, you'd have to have collusion. It would be very, very dangerous.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Desire != intent by oliphaunt · · Score: 1

      it's only dangerous if you get caught.

      --




      Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
    6. Re:Desire != intent by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      This is why conspiracy theories don't scale. The more people involved, the more people there are likely to turn in on moral, financial, attention or other grounds.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    7. Re:Desire != intent by wrt2 · · Score: 1

      Just as Watergate didn't scale -- oh, wait, it did; the burglers got caught by a security guard, and the reality of 60 months in the pokey got someone to squeal, and even then, Watergate didn't make its true scale evident until testimony under oath at a congressional hearing revealed the existence of the Oval Office taping mechanism. Organizing a surprise birthday party doesn't scale; organizing a coup d'etat scales well, especially if the participants have a hierarchical, quasi-military structure.

      --
      -- "Why, Mr. Anderson, why? Why do you do it? Why get up? Why keep voting? Do you think you're voting for something?"
    8. Re:Desire != intent by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 1

      In other news, the body of a programmer and a few attorneys have been found falling down the niagara falls. Initial investigations from the FBI revealed that these men were originally on a camping trip 6 miles upstream when crocodiles from the niagara dragged them into the water....

      --
      Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
    9. Re:Desire != intent by jcr · · Score: 1

      I'd have Diebold by the balls.

      No, you'd be a felon who had better keep quiet if you didn't want to do 25 to 50 years.

      It's just not that simple.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    10. Re:Desire != intent by mrjohnson · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit. :-)

      By pissing off Diebold, you'd anger a good deal of the most powerful people in the world. The people who control the combined forces of the FBI, CIA, NSA, the military, and everything in between.

      And you'd just blackmail them (and commit a felony)? At best you could hope to blow the whistle and create a scandal, but your career would likely be over. That'd be very noble, but not really on par with "by the balls."

  16. Re:Slashdot Slant by drightler · · Score: 1

    Ok.. I'm going to bite.

    From Wikipedia:

    Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it comprises only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and thus is only the first step towards possible removal. Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office.

    Washington D.C. criminal codes:

    22-201. Adultery Definition and penalty. Whoever commits adultery in the District shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not exceeding $500, or by imprisonment not exceeding 180 days, or both; and when the act is committed between a married person and a person who is unmarried both parties to such act shall be deemed guilty of adultery.

    The President was indicted for a crime... seems only right to me.

    --

    blah blah blah....
    drightler@technicalogic.com
  17. Re:That was cute... by Danse · · Score: 1

    Heh. I'm thinking the mods didn't try to load the story within the first few minutes of it being posted. Instead of loading up the story page and comments, it just loaded a page that said "Nothing for you to see here. Move along."

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  18. Re:hmm by AoT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What really happened is that fear won. Fear of terrorism, fear of gay marriage, fear of a lot of things. Most of the people I talked to that voted for Bush didn't do so because they thought he was good, they did it because he wasn't Kerry. And vice versa. On top of that only about 30% of eligible voter voted for Bush and if Kerry had won it would have been a similar percentage.

    On another topic, what happened to "no taxation without representation"? How easily we forget.

    --
    A blog about stuff.
  19. Bush's second term by phyruxus · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Fellow liberals,

    Apparently the republicans are invulnerable to truth and reason. Fairly or unfairly, they've taken the election. Since the conservative trolls and their mod abusing partners are still running rampant, let me cut to the chase.

    We as democrats face a strategic gap. Our agenda of promoting civil rights and defending the lower class and the environment isn't grabbing the middle aged voters. In order to turn back the tide of partisan villification and party unilateralism we need to have referendum.

    As americans we already have the ability to contact our representatives. Because of the situation we are in, we need to do something more than that. We need our democratic representatives to lead us by calling us together to share our insights and regroup as democrats.

    If we do not act now we will be swept away. Discussing our hopes and desires with our neighbors is not going to cut it. Similarly just contacting our reps isn't enough. We need to professionally analyze and resynthsize our mode of operation. Clearly something has to change. We can do this the dumb, easy way, and go about business as usual. Or we can take a comprehensive accounting of ourselves and act.

    Beyond that, I have some minor opinions of what we need to do; but these are just guesses in the dark on my part. To firm up our strategy we need to organize. Here's my 2 cents:

    The republican agenda is set at the top and their rhetoric is uniform - they listen to Rush Limbaugh and everyone knows what lie to use, what button to push to aggravate us, and which slur to accuse us with. IMHO, we need to fight fire with fire on this. I've heard that we democrats function best as a party when we work from the grassroots up. If this election was our best, we're screwed. We need to oppose fundamentalist christianity's drive to weld their theology to the federal government, but we can embrace christians in the middle and on our side without giving up that goal. Republicans often go against the teachings of Jesus. We need to bring christianity to the fore so that we can counter their "blah blah bible" arguments. We can still embrace non christians by preserving the constitutional foundations of the separation of church and state, and the freedom of religion.

    We may want to look at the South, and see if there is room for compromise with southern ideals. Personally, I view the north-south differences in terms of slavery. It appears to me that the big issue we have to face with the south is bigotry against non-whites and non-fundamentalist christians. We can embrace southerners without embracing racism and theological intolerance.

    Finally I think we have all seen how much damage the conservative media bias has done to the national discourse. Their spinjockeys and pundits pound out two messages continuously to all their members: The first message is one of reinforcing hatred of democrats. They brand us all as communists, all as unamerican, all as unpatriotic and they're getting cocky about calling us terrorists. We have to give them a few bloody noses or it's never going to end, and America will spiral into theocracy and or fascism.

    The second message of the conservative pundit is the party message of the moment. They always have ammo. If you win a discussion on one topic, they turn on you with another. Every time you argue, you're arguing with Karl Rove. It's like playing chess against an army of Kasparovs.

    We need to reassert our party identity, and then we need to fight tooth and nail.

    One last thing... we need to use our philibuster ability. We may need to compromise unduly... but we can not give up entirely.

    As Barak Obama said, the Arc of the Universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

    We shall overcome.

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
    "d'Oh!" ~Homer
    1. Re:Bush's second term by (trb001) · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How does this get +1:Insightful? Now, +1:Funny I was expecting, but Insightful?

      If you want to win some more votes, stop alienating people, stop calling the president horrible names or stupid euphemisms (Moore, I'm looking right at YOU) every chance you get, and drop the intellectual superiority schtick. We have DIFFERENT, not worse, ideologies...and a year ago many of us broke away and wanted to vote against Bush, but felt alienated and belittled by Democrats who didn't want to represent us, but wanted to be everything Bush was not.

      Finally, drop the conspiracy theories. "The Conservative media" is a farce, and insinuating we all take marching orders from Karl Rove is proposterous.

      --trb

    2. Re:Bush's second term by meta-monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      DISCLAIMER: I'm a libertarian who voted for Bush. While I consider myself a Christian, I'm not a particularly strong one, and I don't attend church.

      Now then, I'm glad to see a liberal actually trying to figure out the disconnect liberals have with all those red states instead of dismissing them as "stupid" or "stolen." I think you're missing the point on religion, though.

      Christians are never going to flock to the Democractic party until the general attitude of Democrats and their leaders changes. The democratic party is openly hostile to religious people. You talk about bigotry in the south against non-whites and non-fundamentalist Christians. I live in the south, and I don't see this bigotry of which you speak. When I do see, however, is a great deal of bigotry from the democratic party and their mouthpieces towards Christianity. Democrats seem more frightened of fundamentalist Christianity than they do of fundamentalist Islam. I can't remember which party leader it was who said, "We live in an age of fundamentalism--Bush and Bin Laden." This kind of disconnect will not win votes. It is important for the Democratic party to become tolerant of Christianity, and realize that there is a significant distinction between the teachings of Jesus and those of Mohommed, and also in the attitudes of their respective followers.

      For instance, Hollywood is one of the primary conduits from which liberal attitudes are broadcast to the nation. Almost invariably, Christianity is portrayed in a negative light in films and on television. Christians are pyschopaths, cult members, rapists, murders, etc. Last night I watched "Drawn Together" on Comedy Central. At one point a character was talking about how gullible the princess character was, that she would believe anything you tell her. Then it cuts to a scene of the princess reading a Bible, and she says, "So, he died on the cross for our sins? Okay, I can believe that!" I'm sure there will be no outcry about that. However, can you imagine what would happen if instead she had been reading the Koran, and said, "So, there's no God but Allah? Sure, I can believe that!" There would be lawsuits, FCC fines and congressional hearings. This is just one of many examples. Democrats need to treat Christianity with the same respect they treat Judaism and Islam. When Mel Gibson actually comes out with a movie that glorifies Christ, he is scorned and attacked.

      Until Democrats come to understand that faith in God is not a mental illness, but simply a different attitude than their own, they will never win over Christians. This is one of the primary reasons black voters turned out for the President like never before. They may agree with Democrats on economic issues and civil rights issues, but their faith is more important. The democratic party, the party of tolerance, is intollerant of Christians. My Christian friends feel like the Democratic party simply doesn't want them. Fix this, embrace Christianity and explain that Christian morality needs to be spread by Christians and their ministries and not by the government, and you will see Christians who share Democratic ideas about economics and foreign policy come your way.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:Bush's second term by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Personally, I view the north-south differences in terms of slavery. It appears to me that the big issue we have to face with the south is bigotry against non-whites and non-fundamentalist christians.

      You want Democrats to do better in the South? You might want to try not-labeling southerners as slave-owners, racists, and bigots, just because they don't vote your way. Not every southerner owns a pickup truck with the confederate flag painted on the hood, and not everyone who disagrees with you does so out of ignorance or malice.

    4. Re:Bush's second term by flibuste · · Score: 1

      First, let me say that I'm an agnostic coming from a formerly catholic-now laic country and wish we'd wipe the idea of religions (ANY) out of our lives once and for all.

      Now, having said that, what you say about how Americans view Christians is true (aside from the mental illness which seems too strong a term). However, it's not only on the democrat side. It's just a general perception that probably was inherited from the protestant waves of immigrants before USA was USA.

      Now, republicans have a tendancy to "bigotry", first being Mister Bush who thinks he's sent by God and of being overzealous with their religious beliefs. What you notice about democrats is probably a reaction to that bigotry.

    5. Re:Bush's second term by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For instance, Hollywood is one of the primary conduits from which liberal attitudes are broadcast to the nation. Almost invariably, Christianity is portrayed in a negative light in films and on television. Christians are pyschopaths, cult members, rapists, murders, etc. Last night I watched "Drawn Together" on Comedy Central. At one point a character was talking about how gullible the princess character was, that she would believe anything you tell her. Then it cuts to a scene of the princess reading a Bible, and she says, "So, he died on the cross for our sins? Okay, I can believe that!" I'm sure there will be no outcry about that. However, can you imagine what would happen if instead she had been reading the Koran, and said, "So, there's no God but Allah? Sure, I can believe that!" There would be lawsuits, FCC fines and congressional hearings. This is just one of many examples. Democrats need to treat Christianity with the same respect they treat Judaism and Islam. When Mel Gibson actually comes out with a movie that glorifies Christ, he is scorned and attacked.
      I would have laughed my ass off if they made a joke about the Qoran, but alas they didn't. My main reason for being antagonistic towards Christians is that they are antagonistic towards me. I've been called a baby killer because I am pro-choice, I have been called evil because I'm an atheist. The damn Christians just won't leave me alone, they want to teach creationism in our schools, they want people to pledge their allegence to their god etc.
      I honestly feel like going on a crusade against all religions. Fundamentalist Islam is very violent, but go back about 7 centuries or so and you will find Christianity was very violent and Islam was tolerant. The lesson? Any religion can be abused for political gain, and the more false promises you make to people about heaven and martrydom, the more feverent they become.
      Religion was a quanit little idea, a way to attempt to explain the universe around us before the invention of microscopes and telescopes. However, it is completely useless in modern days, and just halts the progress of humanity. I yearn for the day when there are no churches, no mosques, no Hindu temples, no Buddhist shrines, no sinogogues, just people, people who realize that we are only around here for a short time and the best way to get through that is to help everyone out. Until then I will be indignant towards Christians, Jews, Muslims etc, esp. if they feel it's their duty to tell me what a horrible human being I am for not believing in their version of "Truth"

      --
      Monstar L
    6. Re:Bush's second term by nine-times · · Score: 1
      Okay, let's have a shouting match.

      Never asked for one.

      My short response to the conservatives

      Not a conservative.... what do you have to say to me?

      ...I'm trying to talk to people in my party...

      Ok, well I'd advise that maybe, if you want to look for ways to improve your party's standing in the American public, you stop alienating independents in order to rally your troops. You might do better to listen to the concerns of people who aren't already sworn loyalists to the democratic party, and try to get them on your side. But that's just my advice....

      You're not going to convince me today to give up and become a born again christian or a hard core republican.

      Do you even know where I'm coming from or who I am? No. I've giving serious advice. You know that saying, "you catch more flies with honey..."? Well, if your goal is really to gain southern support, bashing the south is not a good way to start. Seriously... I'm not saying you shouldn't post these things, I'm saying one part of your post really needs some work if you are really after your stated goal.

      I clearly stated that we democrats CAN embrace the south WITHOUT embracing bigotry.

      So what do you want, a cookie? My whole point is your post implies that this is a tricky maneuver, to embrace the south without embracing bigotry. The whole tone of the comment seems to be comparable to, "We can embrace them without sinking to their level." Or how else do you support the statement, "I view the north-south differences in terms of slavery."? There are plenty of differences between rural Alabama and New York City (for example) that have nothing to do with slavery, and until you understand what some of those differences are, you don't have much hope of reaching southerners.

      Attacking me doesn't make me go "oh this is hard.. I'll give up now".

      I didn't say I wanted you to.

      ...you can't even let me talk without attacking and mischaracterizing what I said.

      Where's the attack? Did I call you names? I told you that you should adjust your rhetoric to be more appealing to the people whose votes you mean to court. On the contrary, I think I correctly characterized what you said as potentially offensive to southerners. I identified a problem with how you were going about things, and instead of addressing that problem, you blew up at me.

      Thanks, you've reminded me once more of what I think of conservatives; that some are ok but mostly the ones who talk, aren't interested in discussion, only in partisan attacks.

      I think you need to read my post again. Not everyone who disagrees with you does so out of ignorance or malice. I take up one aspect of what you said, and I point out where it's problematic, and you accuse me of "partisan attacks". Who does it seem to you isn't interested in discussion here?

    7. Re:Bush's second term by nine-times · · Score: 1
      Religion was a quanit little idea, a way to attempt to explain the universe around us before the invention of microscopes and telescopes. However, it is completely useless in modern days...

      Perhaps not all of these "religions" are quite what you think, nor are they intended for what you think they're intended for. A microscope can let you view some of the inner-workings of a cell, but it can not give moral guidance. A telescope can get you a better view of the planets, but it can't tell you how to cope with being such an insignificant part of such a large world.

      Buddhism, for example, can be downright explicit at times that the teachings are not meant to be fact, but are metaphors contrived to teach you about life. I wouldn't call such a thing "useless", no matter how far science progresses.

      I know this is not how a lot of "religious" people view their particular religion, but lets not throw the baby out with the bath-water.

      And I wonder if you might consider asking yourself, that little ego boost that those "religious" people get from telling you that you're evil, do you get that same ego boost from telling them that they're silly and wrong?

      I hope you'll see that I'm not trying to attack you, and that you'll take my post as earnest.

    8. Re:Bush's second term by Leftist+Troll · · Score: 1

      Our agenda of promoting civil rights and defending the lower class and the environment isn't grabbing the middle aged voters.

      I think the Democratic Party has (with the exception of a few commendable individuals) abandoned these goals. They still pay them lip service, but they've given them up in favor of corporate money.

      The republican agenda is set at the top and their rhetoric is uniform - they listen to Rush Limbaugh and everyone knows what lie to use, what button to push to aggravate us, and which slur to accuse us with. IMHO, we need to fight fire with fire on this

      I want no part in a top-down party. Which the Democrats already are too much of for me.

      If this election has taught us anything, it should be that Democrats shouldn't be trying to out-Republican the Republicans.

    9. Re:Bush's second term by Leftist+Troll · · Score: 1

      Last night I watched "Drawn Together" on Comedy Central
      Please, I beg of you, be fair to us left wingers. That show is an abomination and does not represent all of us.

    10. Re:Bush's second term by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Religion was a quanit little idea, a way to attempt to explain the universe around us before the invention of microscopes and telescopes.

      And that is why the democratic party will never win those red states back. QED. You completely dismiss as quaint and backwards something that is a fundamental part of someone else's life...and then you want them to give you their support. It won't happen.

      Bush likes to talk about "reaching out" to those who disagree with him. That's what the democrats need to do if they're going to attract Christians. They need to reach out to them, without the antagonization and without condescension, and find common ground. There are Christians who believe in a progressive tax system. There are MANY Christians who are pascifists and believe America's foreign policy is on the wrong track. Bring these people to your table by compromising with them on religion.

      Next time you encounter a Christian who votes for Bush because of moral values, sit down with them and have this conversion. Say, "I respect your faith although I do not share it. We have values common to all Americans, which stem from the faith of the Founders. These are values like freedom, fair play, and basic human rights. The teachings of Jesus bear these out. We in the democratic party have ideas and plans that can help make America and the world a better place. They include our plans for health care, the environment, the economy, and a more diplomatic foreign policy. However, in order to accomplish these things to help you, we need to come to an understanding about the place of religion in government. Look at the way Jesus interacted with the Roman government. He didn't. He never tried to lobby the Roman senate to reshape their laws to his vision. In the same way, Christians must understand that is not the place of government to foster Christianity...it is the place of Christians to foster Christianity. Now let's come together on the things on which we agree in order to accomplish our mutual goals."

      An attitude like that can turn red states blue. However, this will not happen. The elites in the Democratic party are openly hostile to Christianity. Christians are not as dumb as you think...they can spot a liar. So unless Democrats can actually put their anti-Christian bigotry behind them, they will never attract Christians to their cause. It will take time, but it can be done. For instance, before the civil rights movement, the Democratic party was just as racist and intollerant of blacks as the Republican party, but they spent a decade throwing rascists out of their party and embracing minorities in urban centers and the south. The democratic party purged themselves of their anti-black bigotry, where the Republican party did not. Only in the last two decades or so have the Republicans attempted to do the same thing, and that's why Republicans are making strong inroads with minority voters, as well. Unless the Democratic party can acknowledge and eliminate their anti-Christian bigotry with the same zeal they did their anti-black bigotry in the 50's and 60's, the democrats will never be a national party again, but will stay relagated to urban centers only.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    11. Re:Bush's second term by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You seem to have missed my point entirely. Most Christians I meet are anti-non-Christian bigots(hell, a lot of them are anti-everyone but those in my denomination-bigots. I tried coming to a consesus with them and I fail miserably. Why? Because they believe in absolutes, and coming together with an infidel is not part of their ideal for the government. They call it a Christian nation and want to make baptisms a part of the requirement to be a citizen, George Bush the elder said he doesn't even think that atheists are patriots. How am I supposed to react to such bigotry?
      Please, Christians in this country love to play the victim, while the persecute those who do not agree with them. I'm sorry, but I am just plain tired of Christians, I'm plain tired of, "Oh, Islam isn't a violent religion, just a few extremists" BS(The extremists are going to a mosque somewhere, and if these muslims aren't complicit they are complacent). I'm just so fucking sick and tired of preachers who say that because I'm a "liberal atheist", HItler and Mother Theresa are equivalent to me. When Christians stop persecuting atheists, when muslims stop blowing themselves up, when Jews stop shooting children in Palestine, when Hindus stop going on rampages murdering people simply because they are of a lower caste, then maybe I will start to "tolerate" religion.

      --
      Monstar L
    12. Re:Bush's second term by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Okay, let's have a shouting match.

      No one was shouting at you. Really, it's true. Go read the parent post again. There's a lot of wisdom in the post, and it's actually saying what you're trying to say, but you're so caught up in a delusion of being attacked that you can't even recognize friend from enemy.

      If you are in any way representative of the Democrat party leadership, then a Republican president will be elected in 2008. If you don't want that then you need to crawl out of your delusion and start observing reality for what it is. There is a reason Kerry lost and post after post is telling you what it is, but unless you open your eyes you're not going to see it.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    13. Re:Bush's second term by glowimperial · · Score: 1

      It think both parties could take your advice about alienating and insulting people. Just 3 days after the election and I am already seeing pro-Bush vandalism/graffitti gloating about the election and calling Kerry supporters a variety of insults around town. I have total respect for the conservative values the the Republican party espouses, I just don't want them forced down my throat.

      Not to upset you, but you may not take marching orders from Karl Rove, but Bush sure does. I don't think a lot of folks on the left are half as put-off by Bush's personal rhetoric and positions, than the folks (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rove, etc...) that he surrounds himself with.

    14. Re:Bush's second term by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      You talk about bigotry in the south against non-whites and non-fundamentalist Christians. I live in the south, and I don't see this bigotry of which you speak.

      Funny, let me guess what color you are and what religion you are. Of course you don't see it because it isn't directed at you. Instead you imagine bigotry coming from those who disagree with your party's politics. Whatever. I'm not anti-Christian and I'm not anti-Muslim or any other religion. But I don't want my kids learning Bible stories in their science classes. I don't want young women to have to get back alley abortions when they need them. I don't want the religious morality of a minority of this country to dictate what adults can and can't watch on TV, or what can and can't be taught in public schools. I don't want a statue of the ten commandments outside the Alabama courthouse unless we can also put a statue of the Alabama State Code outside the Church of Christ in Birmingham. And I want to live in a country where the citizens understand why it is wrong to put matters of religious faith and private morality into public law. Does that make me a bigot?

      It is important for the Democratic party to become tolerant of Christianity, and realize that there is a significant distinction between the teachings of Jesus and those of Mohommed, and also in the attitudes of their respective followers.

      I get it now; you're not just mad coz you think the Democrats are intolerant of Christianity; you are mad because they are not intolerant enough of Islam.

    15. Re:Bush's second term by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      Not every southerner owns a pickup truck with the confederate flag painted on the hood

      No, but an overwhelming majority of the white ones consistently vote to put that flag over their public buildings.

    16. Re:Bush's second term by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      See, that's the sort of prejudice I'm talking about. You assume that because there are a very few Christians who want to use the government to promote their religion, that all of them do. I'm a Christian...in name, mostly...I don't think about it much, and I don't go to church. Politically I'm a libertarian and I want church and state far seperated. However, I recognize the difference between mainstream christianity and a few fundatmentalist whackos. You do not, and, yes, that makes you a bigot. I have the same views you do about government and religion, but you have a bigoted view of Christians, painting them all with the same brush.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    17. Re:Bush's second term by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Not at all -- I don't assume anything at all about all Christians. I personally know many Christians who do not think this way. My comments were not aimed at Christians per se but at the ones you call "whackos." I have no problem with what you or any other Christian chooses as faith; I just don't want it shoved down my throat as a matter of public policy. That was my whole point.

    18. Re:Bush's second term by stinerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The elites in the Democratic party are openly hostile to Christianity.

      You're getting way off track.

      I'm a proud independent agnostic liberal. I do not hate Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. I don't even distinguish between them. I see people, not religions.

      What gets my goat is when the fundamentalists in the said religions use their religion as a justification for their political beliefs. When you invoke God(s), you are effectively saying that if you are not for my policies, you are against God(s).

      See, its okay if I strap a bomb on to myself and kill civilians; GOD WANTS ME TO DO IT. Its okay if I deny good people rights based on their sexual orientation; GOD WANTS ME TO DO IT. Its okay if I kill doctors who perform abortions; GOD WANTS ME TO DO IT.

      When you invoke the supposed creator of the universe, its hard to argue against that viewpoint. Religion can make people do insane things, which is why it isn't a good idea to base one's politics on it.

      If there is a God(s), I highly doubt he (they) wants to be basis of American politics.

    19. Re:Bush's second term by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Most religious folk aren't like that. At least, they're much more tactful than the people you've run across. The problem is, you've got loud, obnoxious morons in every camp, doing their accidental best to make the group look bad. They'll get up in your face, insult you every way they can, and make sure that their disgust for you tarnishes your view of anyone with a remotely similar viewpoint.

      I used to hang out a lot in religious chat rooms, arguing with people. I was quite an obnoxious little atheist. Still am, in fact. But never as bad as some of the people who shared my views. To them, anyone who professed Christianity was an evil monster. The flame wars were impressive, and totally unproductive.

      You cannot ask them to change who they are before you'll start looking for common ground again. You have to make the first move. These people are living in fear. Fear of the "liberal agenda" and the "liberal media", fear of the erosion of the value of life, fear of gay marriage, fear of terrorism. So they vote for those who play to those fears. Some are too far gone, and it sounds like you've run into quite a few. Ignore them, and spend your time talking with those people who can discuss things reasonably.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    20. Re:Bush's second term by minkwe · · Score: 1
      But I don't want my kids learning Bible stories in their science classes.

      Why? Just because they are bible stories? So you disprove of all bible Stories just because they are in the bible? Isn't this bigotry?

      I don't want the religious morality of a minority of this country to dictate what adults can and can't watch on TV


      Do you want anybody to dictate what adults can and can't watch on TV? Why are religous groups any different.

      I don't want a statue of the ten commandments outside the Alabama courthouse

      Why? Just because it is in the Bible, or because you disagree with it. Try and read the ten commandments you may actually agree with most of it. Rejecting a statue of the 10 commandments just because christians assosicate with it is bigotry.

      Christianity is never about laws. It is about personal choices. Those "christians" that think they are acheiving anything by legislating moral issues are as bigotted as those that object to anything that has a christian stamp on it.

      The Old Testament is there to teach us through the experience of the Isrealites that laws are not sufficient to make us good because you can perform the requirements of the law and appear good on the outside but be very bad on the inside.
      For example, a woman who keeps her baby just because there is a law against abortion (not because she wants the baby) is not better than one who goes through with the abortion. Christianity is about changing people from the inside out, not from the outside through legislation.

      So I'm not exactly sure if Bush's re-election is a result of christianity. Bigotry, maybe but not exactly christianity.

      --
      "Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
    21. Re:Bush's second term by anothy · · Score: 1

      You, sir, are an ass.

      where to start? as a lifelong progressive Christian who's registered as independent and voted for Kerry in the last election, i'm telling you first hand that there's plenty of counter-examples to your profoundly ignorant idea of Christians. people like those involved with the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, or Appalachia Service Project, or Habitat for Humanity - all of which are service organizations, founded by Christians who understood their religion to be one of service to others, and who serve without regard to, among other things, religious belief in those they're serving.

      you say "they" an awful lot when referring to a group that doesn't even agree on a common creed (Apostle's? Nicean? which version? none?). and in ways which are pretty verifiably false, even using well-known public figures rather than (the very numerous) individuals like myself. you do, for example, realize that John Kerry is a professing Christian, right? yet he's no slave to Christian doctrine (to the point where various church's won't let him take communion (which, theologically, is despicable, IMHO)).

      i'm pretty sick of preachers who equate atheist (or liberal) with immoral, too. so when i hear such preachers, i stop going to that church, and find a sane preacher. the fact that one guy says stupid things doesn't, in any rational sense, invalidate the teachings of a group that he - along with billions of others - happens to be a member of. when i hear a black guy saying all white people are evil racists who'd gladly lynch blacks if they thought they could get away with it, i stop listening to that guy; i make no assumption that he speaks for all black people. how are you supposed to react to GHW Bush saying idiotic, arrogant things? how 'bout by getting annoyed with him, rather than some group he happens to be part of? he's also an American - does that make all Americans right-wing conservative whacos? of course not. GHW Bush does not speak for all Christians - nor, to the best of my knowledge, even any substantial subset (unlike, say, the Pope, who arguably speaks for a substantial subset on certain issues).

      i've never "persecuted" an atheist in my life, nor held any prejudice against them. more to the point, in my time involved in youth ministry, i've actively attacked such prejudice when i've found it (in addition to prejudice against other religions). the majority of Christians i know, and certainly the overwhelming majority that i associate regularly with, harbor no hatred towards those who believe differently.

      you have some strange idea of "complacency", too. do you think the suicide bombers are polling their congregations, making sure everyone's okay with their actions? that if only someone objected, they'd sit back down or turn themselves in? or that the psychos who kill abortion doctors care that their church session (or whatever the appropriate body for their denomination is) thinks that's immoral? that's just stupid, and demonstrates a total lack of any sort of understanding of human psychology.

      you have some sort of axe to grind with Christianity, and/or religion in general. that's fine, i'm not here to play shrink to you or say you shouldn't have "issues". i'm just pointing out that your post represents at least the same level of bigotry you're accusing Christians of, that you're failing to apply any reasonable amount of discernment, and that the standard that you're holding religious people to is not one you'd measure up to yourself.

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    22. Re:Bush's second term by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      So you disprove of all bible Stories just because they are in the bible? Isn't this bigotry?

      I said in SCIENCE classes. Yes, I am bigoted against teaching mythology as science. Put it in a philosophy class, theology class, literature class, and I have no problem with it. But not in science class. This has nothing to do with being anti-religion.

      Do you want anybody to dictate what adults can and can't watch on TV? Why are religous groups any different.

      Because the U.S. Constitution separates church and state. I don't want anyone to dictate what adults watch, no, but if anyone is going to do it, it damn well better not be a church. Would you want the content of your TV programming dictated by fundamentalist Muslims?

      Rejecting a statue of the 10 commandments just because christians assosicate with it is bigotry.

      I said I don't think it should be in a courthouse. I'm well aware of the ten commandments and I'm happy to see a statue of them outside a CHURCH, but not outside the COURTHOUSE. Again, would you want a statue of the Alabama State Code outside your favorite church? How about a statue of the Koran or the Talmud outside of your public school? How about the Necronomicon?

      The Old Testament is there to teach us through the experience of the Isrealites that laws are not sufficient to make us good because you can perform the requirements of the law and appear good on the outside but be very bad on the inside.

      Well, that's nice, and I even agree with it, but the law should not be used to promote that "experience of goodness outside the law." The law is the law and it should serve the public, not the dictates of a particular church. I am happy about Christianity or any other religion trying to change people from the inside out, as you say, but I do not want it forced on the public (at public expense) in public arenas like (public) schools, courts, and laws. It seems like you agree with me on this yet you question why we shouldn't teach creationism in science class or put the ten commandments on public buildings.

      I agree with you that Bush's re-election is a result of bigotry rather than Christianity. There are a great many Christians who do not espouse the bigoted views of the President and his followers on the far right. I have no problem with Christianity or Christians per se; it is just the ones who want to make their religion the law of the land that really irk me. And it saddens me that they have so much influence on the President.

  20. Re:Slashdot Slant by Noksagt · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I somehow doubt we will be seeing any stories about how a voting machine accidentally gave Kerry more votes.
    There were stories on the risks of e-voting before election day. There should be more stories in the future--it is an important topic! The fact that the reported incidents would mistakingly gave Bush a few more votes isn't really that important. If there were incidents of it going the other way, it would be important to knowthat too. If Kerry had won, I'd expect we be hearing a fewmore stories: it is more compelling that the loser--regardless of party--was cheated by fate. I'm not exaclty a huge democrat and I don't want to see the results overturned, but I do hope that stories like these do get more coverage so that the problems will be fixed.

    someone--anyone--
  21. Re:hmm by Danse · · Score: 1

    As we saw in 2000, the popular vote count means nothing. It's what happens in a few particular places that makes all the difference. Makes it that much easier to screw with things too. Especially when the half of the country that got what they wanted will deliberately ignore and play down the many many problems that caused a lot of votes to be lost. I guess being in touch with the rest of the country means being willing to ignore serious problems with the the systems we use for voting and the people who put those systems in place. On top of all the other things we've heard about the republicans doing, this isn't too surprising though. Party of morals and values my ass. You guys are pretty selective when it comes to ethical standards.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  22. Re:Slashdot Slant by drightler · · Score: 1

    Probably the same reason FOX News takes so much heat from liberals. Nobody likes a story when it isn't slanted in their direction.

    --

    blah blah blah....
    drightler@technicalogic.com
  23. Re:Slashdot Slant by Danse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On the total reversal, if Kerry had won, a Replublican STILL wouldn't have tipped a reporter off.. at least in my opinion. This is simply because, as Democrat friends of mine have said, "Democrats are whiners.".

    If that Republican gave a shit about democracy and the sanctity of the election system, then he damn well should start talking since that's the only way the problems will get fixed.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  24. Re:there goes by Jesrad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All I hear from the citizens who voted for Kerry is "Let's move to Canada". Yeah right, move away and abandon fighting for democracy in your own country. Instead of fleeing to the Canuck Haven, they should stay and demand a re-election, with paper (trail or ballot) only. The remaining americans might have voted for Bush, but they don't deserve being deceived.

    --
    Maybe we deserve this world ?
  25. Missing Votes, Missing reports by Thunderstruck · · Score: 1

    I'm sure we all know the truth - these missing votes were all cast for Bandarik.

    The real question is, with all of these maps of every county in every state - why can't a third party candidate even take his HOME COUNTY?

    --
    Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
  26. Re:Slashdot Slant by AoT · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First you say republicans don't whine, then you admit they do. And as someone who is most definitely not a liberal I must say that my big problem with FOX is not the spin, it is the complete disregard for unbiased commentary and the abandonment of any sort of journalistic objectivity. I have seen a "reporter" roll their eyes and dismisively laugh while reporting the statements of democrats, leftists or foreign governments.(only the ones that oppose US actions of course)

    The sad part of it all is that I used to watch FOX news much more often, before 9/11, because they had a lot more real news than the other networks, and I could see through the bias. Now it's absurd.

    On a side note, it would be nice to see a news channel that is closer to the content of "the economist". I'd love it regardless of the bias, just to get the damn news and not the fluff that everyone has today.

    --
    A blog about stuff.
  27. Re:hmm by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    I don't think you read the post to which I responded. Because of these 3,000 extra votes for Bush, which were discovered and eliminated, he was prepared to claim the election had been "stolen" again. We have an isolated problem, which was identified and corrected, and regardless of the results of the electoral college or the general will of the people expressed in the popular vote, he was already willing to spend the next four years decrying a "stolen" election, rather than reflecting inward, discovering what about his party's message (or lack thereof) failed to connect with the majority of voters, and attempting to correct it. It borders on cognitive dissonance.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  28. Re:hmm by AoT · · Score: 1

    While I agree with you about rational people being able to discus the best canidate, that hasn't been what presidential elecctions elections have been about for quite a while now. They are about image.

    And to add to my first post on fear. Kerry would have won on the ffear vote as well. The fear of illegal abortions, the fear of bush, the fear of a draft, and the fear of an increasingly religous government.

    --
    A blog about stuff.
  29. Re:Slashdot Slant by Krow10 · · Score: 1
    On the total reversal, if Kerry had won, a Replublican STILL wouldn't have tipped a reporter off.. at least in my opinion.
    Nah, that would never happen. I think perhaps you have a distorted view of reality. (a) There is nothing noble in ignoring a systemic problem, and (b) even if it were, as Niven said, "[t]here is no cause so noble that it will not attract fuggheads." And I have never been of the opinion that political parties succeed because they are particularly noble in the first place.

    Cheers,
    Craig

    --
    Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
  30. Re:hmm by Danse · · Score: 1

    We have an isolated problem, which was identified and corrected, and regardless of the results of the electoral college or the general will of the people expressed in the popular vote, he was already willing to spend the next four years decrying a "stolen" election, rather than reflecting inward, discovering what about his party's message (or lack thereof) failed to connect with the majority of voters, and attempting to correct it. It borders on cognitive dissonance.

    First of all, the problem is not isolated. There have been many reports of malfunctioning machines coming in. And how can you expect people to not be suspicious, given the criminal or borderline criminal acts that republicans engaged in prior to the election? How about Jim Toobin? How about Jeb Bush and his felon list? If you want me to get out the list, I will.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  31. About 30 more of these... by Lendrick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...would account for GWB's entire lead in Ohio. Keep an eye out, folks.

    1. Re:About 30 more of these... by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      Except that this was the only county in Ohio that used this type of voting machine.

      --
      [PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
  32. Re:hmm by mink · · Score: 1

    I think the bigger problem is we are starting to see reports of voting problems (votes not tallied, extra non existant votes, ect) roll in from mor then 1 precint in Ohio.
    While I think that unless there is a bombshell among them, bush won the election. I as an American, and Patriot, will not rest until all the votes are counted and any problems/irregularities identified and dealt with.

    I am allready starting to do what I can to put preasure on the people in my area of government to fix the issues I ahve seen.

    --
    Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  33. ADA and language issues w/ paper ballots by davidwr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Paper ballots are not as usuable by the blind and people with limited use of the hands as touch-screen balloting.

    E-voting also makes providing multilingual ballots to all precincts easier.

    In low-turnout elections it also facilitates combining polling stations.

    On the down side, there's that nasty lack of an audit trail on SOME machines.

    Memo to America: Listen to Nevada.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  34. Does not change the election, BUT... by spitzak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These errors do not change the election result! Bush won by too big of a margin in Ohio and Florida, any assumption that the machines threw it for Bush would mean that those counties would have had to vote in tremendous numbers for Kerry (like 70%), which is impossible. But that does NOT mean we should not investigate them. In fact it means it is the BEST time to investigate them!

    Unfortunately I see way too many Republicans saying "it's those sore loser Democrats trying to cause trouble". And quite a few Democrats saying "this proves the election was wrong"

    We MUST investigate these machines. This is the best time to do so, there is now tons of proof that they are screwed up, but the investigation can be just into the machines themselves and the people behind them, without any threat to the stability of our government.

    But as long as people keep whining about "sore loser Democrats" or "election was wrong" then it will discourage any investigaton. This is BAD, BAD BAD!! These machines may throw the NEXT election. And Republicans had better realize that a single wild hippie Liberal in the wrong place could use them to throw it toward the left, this is NOT a partisian issue! Everybody should be in agreement that these machines need to be gotten rid of NOW. Don't blow our best chance by making this a partisian mess.

    1. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by Krow10 · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately I see way too many Republicans saying "it's those sore loser Democrats trying to cause trouble". And quite a few Democrats saying "this proves the election was wrong"

      We MUST investigate these machines.

      Hear, hear. Another thing I've heard is "it was just a glitch" -- i.e. what the "help"desk worker tells you when you call with a problem. It may well be just a glitch, but ignoring reports doesn't make real problems go away. I am not satisfied with the "glitch" dismissal -- I want proof that there are sufficient safeguards against real problems. Personally, I'm not satisfied with anything but a multiple-vendor two-step solution with a paper trail. My ideal system would have machine 1 (manufactured by independent companies A,B or C) record & count votes and produce a machine+human readable receipt which is fed into machine 2 (manufactured by independent companies D,E or F) which records & counts the votes and saves the receipt for audits. I don't trust one vendor solutions.

      Cheers,
      Craig

      --
      Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    2. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by fenris_23 · · Score: 1

      That is well and good but if at least thirty more machines in Ohio failed as this one did, then the statement: "The election was wrong" is true. And if you want to truly investigate these machines, then you cannot rule out the possibility that more of these machines failed in exactly the same way (or even worse). Therefore, in order to objectively investigate these machines, you must accept the possibility that Kerry did indeed win Ohio and Bush's re-election is illegitimate.

    3. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Unfortunately I see way too many Republicans saying "it's those sore loser Democrats trying to cause trouble".

      I haven't heard any such thing. As a Republican, let me give you a different response:

      My guy won. If there are any doubts about the accuracy of the vote, then I want them straightened out now so that everyone (discounting the conspiracy theorists [0]) will know that he was legitimately elected. The last thing I want is to hear another four years of "selected, not elected". I give my full support to groups investigating these matters for the purpose of getting accurate results, and everyone I've talked to feels the same way.

      [0] By that, I mean the black helicopter types, not the average skeptical Joe on the street.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    4. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Yes, but what happends when they find out he didn't win but they find out too late for the election to be changed?

    5. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      *The last thing I want is to hear another four years of "selected, not elected".*

      why not? that is after all how the system works in usa. you elect people who select the president.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 2, Interesting

      These errors do not change the election result! Bush won by too big of a margin in Ohio and Florida, any assumption that the machines threw it for Bush would mean that those counties would have had to vote in tremendous numbers for Kerry (like 70%)

      I don't follow. First off, several counties recorded over 70% in favor of Kerry. For instance, Chicago was 81% (802K) Kerry and only 18% (180K) Bush. Admitedly, none of the metropolitan areas in Ohio hit more than 67% (Cleveland area), but then, the validity of these very numbers is what is at question. Franklin county (Columbus area) had over 500,000 votes so even if the problem was restricted to this county, then we're still dealing with some very large numbers.

      All that said, it does seem very unlikely that several instances of this problem could change the results... but I don't see why it is not a possibility.

    7. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by Damek · · Score: 1

      As a Democrat, can fellow liberals (or at least "anti-Bush" people) please stop saying things like this? You hurt more than you help.

    8. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by rmohr02 · · Score: 1

      Supreme Court Justices aren't elected.

    9. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by macrealist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My guy won. If there are any doubts about the accuracy of the vote, then I want them straightened out now

      I agree. There is not too much doubt about the fact that the president won. But that doesn't mean that the investigations won't turn up foul play. Nixon was ridiculously in the lead when his guys did that little Watergate thing. And Nixon's mistake was finding out about it and trying to cover it up. The president would be smart to start the investigation now. It would convince the average Joe, impress a lot of liberals, and he would gain the respect of the average ./er.

      --
      I am living proof of the Peter Principle
    10. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by spitzak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you are talking about the machine recording 3000 *extra* votes for Bush, it is true that if this happend 30 times then this would be 90000 extra votes for Bush, which is approaching the margin. However these are *extra* votes, it would be pretty obvious if there were 90,000 more votes from these areas than there are voters. Also the areas are then voting 95% for Bush which is extremely unlikely. So I do not think this error is repeated 30 times, it would have been obvious and detected by now.

    11. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by spitzak · · Score: 1

      I like that idea. Bush could win enormous amounts of karma from Liberals by calling for an investigation of any voting irregularities. It would be a huge political win. He is quite safe as there is no chance of there being a big enough irregularity to indicate the election was wrong.

    12. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by fenris_23 · · Score: 1

      How do you figure? I could imagine many scenarios where these machines incorrectly recorded votes. It could go either way. The point I was making is that if you really want to effectively investigate these machines, then you will have to accept the possibility that you could discover Bush's re-election is illegitimate.

    13. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by fenris_23 · · Score: 1

      Kerry's concession does not mean anything outside of public relations. If somehow, these machines screwed up that badly and it is shown that Kerry did indeed win, then he would be sworn in as the next president. The weird scenario is if Bush is sworn in and afterwards it is discovered that Kerry won. What then? I don't think our founding Fathers could have forseen such a foolish idea as auditless, paper-voteless electronic voting machines...

    14. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1
      We MUST investigate these machines. This is the best time to do so, there is now tons of proof that they are screwed up, but the investigation can be just into the machines themselves and the people behind them, without any threat to the stability of our government.

      That's also my take on the election aftermath, more or less.

      John Kerry made a tremendous step forward when he refused to unleash the lawyers. Whether it was out of statesmanship or practicality, I don't know. Either way, he and his party have a lot better position for 2008 than Al Gore created for 2004. It also made improving the election process much more likely, ironically by telling people by his actions to have faith in the system.

      The process of electing our government officials is well understood, at least by those who specialize in it. That makes it a good candidate (pardon the expression) for stepwise refinements of various kinds. We can (and do) use evolutionary improvement, in which the various Secretaries of State compare notes on what works best.

      As much as politicians like attention, messing up an election may be the one area in which the maxim "all press is good press" may not apply. Think of former Florida SecSt Katherine Harris and her involvement in the 2000 elections. Four years later bozos are trying to run her over!

      So the folks in charge are motivated even more to make the process run smoothly. That may translate into risk avoidance, but that's probably OK. They won't be as likely to adopt some newfangled gee-whiz electronical thingy just because somebody makes a joke about hanging chads.

      --
      sigs, as if you care.
    15. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by glowimperial · · Score: 1

      I wish all Americans feel like you do. However, winners or percieved winners generally aren't as selfless. At the same time losers generally look to find reasons outside of themselves for their loss. More at stake than the presidency here is the nature of our democracy and how well it is managed.

      I am an extreme lefty and I have been listening to "black helicopter types" all week at my office, they sound so sad and make almost no sense. I think they are usually even more mis/underinformed than the block of Bush voters who believe that Saddam had WMD or that he executed 9/11.

    16. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 1

      In defense of the grandparent, I think I heard later the other day that Franklin may have been the only county in Ohio using these particular machines. So this would lead you to believe that the Cuyahoga numbers do not suffer the same problem. Even with a large young population and a large gay population, I doubt Franklin would vote more liberally than Cuyhahoga (67%). We'd have to in order to change the election... so the granparent's argument that we'd have to vote an unrealistically high percentage for Kerry stands.

    17. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      It would convince the average Joe, impress a lot of liberals, and he would gain the respect of the average ./er.

      I'm not sure you understand. Bush is not beholden to the average Joe, nor lots of liberals, and certainly not the average ./er. The far right has control of the entire government, and it was due to their base, white evangelicals, coming out in record numbers. They don't need shit from you. Bush will fix this problem when Hell freezes over.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    18. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by zuesse · · Score: 1

      Again!

      --


      What great fortune for rulers that men do not think.
    19. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by zuesse · · Score: 1

      The weird scenario is if Bush is sworn in and afterwards it is discovered that Kerry won. What then?

      Bush would remain in the white house as he did when
      we found, several months later, that Gore won Fla.

      --


      What great fortune for rulers that men do not think.
    20. Re:Does not change the election, BUT... by arodland · · Score: 1

      Of course, all slashdotters already knew that Ohio's votes would be delivered to the President, so that was no surprise last Tuesday night. What I don't get are the Floridians. How did the polls manage to be so unrepresentative?

  35. Re:Slashdot Slant by mink · · Score: 1

    I dunno who tipped the reporter off, but the vote data is posted publically and the reason it was found was because someone who cared, looked and saw something wrong.

    No matter who or what side was involved this basic action needs to be done all the time to catch any problems either accidental or intentional.

    --
    Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  36. Re:hmm by Golias · · Score: 1

    I think it's funny how Ohio can't even be their own state. On the news they said, "Ohio is the Florida of 2004". How can a state be another state. Oh well, I digress.

    I think it's pretty clear that they mean it in the same sense as when people say "pink is the new black."

    --

    Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  37. Vote count problem in San Francisco (Not Diebold) by ugmoe · · Score: 3, Informative
    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041105/D865R1DO0 .html

    Meanwhile, in San Francisco, a glitch occurred with software designed for the city's new "ranked-choice voting," in which voters list their top three choices for municipal offices. If no candidate gets a majority of first-place votes outright, voters' second and third-place preferences are then distributed among candidates who weren't eliminated in the first round.

    When the San Francisco Department of Elections tried a test run on Wednesday of the program that does the redistribution, some of the votes didn't get counted and skewed the results, director John Arntz said.

    "All the information is there," Arntz said. "It's just not arriving the way it was supposed to."

    A technician from the Omaha, Neb. company that designed the software, Election Systems & Software Inc., was working to diagnose and fix the problem.

  38. No malfunction at all by cam_macleod · · Score: 1

    "He couldn't explain why the computer reader malfunctioned"

    Perhas the computer reader didn't malfunction; perhaps it functioned precisely as designed.

    It still boggles my mind that anyone could ever suggest that a voting machine could be better at counting votes than actually, you know, counting them.

  39. Re:hmm by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    And how can you expect people to not be suspicious, given the criminal or borderline criminal acts that republicans engaged in prior to the election?

    They were probably balanced out by the criminal and borderline criminal acts the Democrats engaged in prior to the election. There are lists of those, too. Any voter fraud is unacceptable, but to claim that Republicans are the only sinners is wilful blindness.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  40. Re:why not? by Wolfger · · Score: 1

    Because there is a box on the ballot that says "Vote for all Republicans" and one that says "Vote for all Democrats", but there are no boxes that say "Vote for all Green/Libertarian/Natural/Independant/Socialist". People are lazy, and don't want to have to think about their candidates. They just pick one of the two sides and stick to it.

    --
    Nothing to see here. Move along.
  41. Re:hmm by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Lets keep our eye on the ball here. The real story here is, "Electronic voting machines are unreliable, and not having a paper-trial is irresponsible."

    Insofar as you turn this into a political flame war, you're just distracting people from the real issue-- the use of electronic voting either needs to be reformed or ended.

  42. Come on now! by theantix · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Diebold machines have told us that President Bush won the election. Why can't the Democrats be satisfied with that? I mean, the integrity of the votes was secured by a Microsoft Access database, which as we all know has *password protection*. The only way someone could have tampered with the results would be if the designers were somehow partisan and wanted to promise the election to a particular candidate.

    And as if the people in the USA would stand for their black box voting machines to be designed by a pro-Bush partisan. It's just not realistic, so stop doubting and Praise Jesus. God Bless America.

    --
    501 Not Implemented
    1. Re:Come on now! by theantix · · Score: 1

      do you even know if it was a diebold machine, or are you just spouting the same rhetoric so brainwashed into you?

      There is a possible third option, you know. I could be joking. FWIW, the machines weren't actually made Diebold, but we can only hope they used the ultra-secure password-protected Microsoft Access databases as well.

      --
      501 Not Implemented
    2. Re:Come on now! by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      God Bless America.

      Kerry's prayer?

    3. Re:Come on now! by zuesse · · Score: 1

      Did bush win?
      Or did he fool just enough of them?

      --


      What great fortune for rulers that men do not think.
  43. Re:Slashdot Slant by cam_macleod · · Score: 1

    When will the current President be indicted for having cabinet members lie to Congress? I'm pretty sure that's not encouraged, is it?

  44. Re:hmm by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    I agree that we should strive to make our voting system as perfect as possible, but we also have to recognize that perfection is a goal, not a state of being. Think back to the first chapter in your high school physics book on weights and measures. Read the section about "accuracy" vs. "precision." We can try our hardest to eliminate systematic errors in the voting process (i.e. increase accuracy) but we will never be able to eliminate random errors (i.e. achieve prefect precision). There will always be user errors, power failures, cosmic rays flipping bits, etc. My argument is with people like the one to whom I originally responded who, faced with a random error, immediately assumed that the entire election was a sham.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  45. Re:Slashdot Slant by Leftist+Troll · · Score: 1

    Or for war crimes, far as I'm concerned. 100,000 Iraqi civillians already dead, and we're gearing up for a major assult on Fallujah - you better believe that number is about to get bigger.

  46. Re:Slashdot Slant by drightler · · Score: 1

    That would be up to Congress now wouldn't it? But of course that won't happen because Congress is filled with Republicans. Did you ever hear me say it was a perfect system? I think our political system sucks... don't blame me.

    --

    blah blah blah....
    drightler@technicalogic.com
  47. Study on Media Bias by doomicon · · Score: 1

    Here is a good and recent study on media bias. http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Fkq8waWxVNIJ: www.yale.edu/isps/seminars/american_pol/groseclose .pdf+study+media+bias&hl=en

    --

    Awesome!
  48. This is exactly what I'm talking about by phyruxus · · Score: 1
    People look at trb's post.

    First he tries to make a joke out of the political statement I made. There's nothing humorous about my post, but trb0001 takes it upon himself to try to take the wind out of my sails. He's consistently partisan.. we see a lot of people like him here lately.

    trb, I know you know this but I'm going to say it for the benefit of anyone who might be confused by your little tirade. My post is not a joke. I am addressing fellow liberals (of which trb0001 is NOT one). So of course he wants to disrupt any discussion.

    People like trb are not going to shut up. We need to do more than just reorganize; we need to restrategize. We need party unity and party discipline. If we turn our backs on politics now, we can forget about civil rights and a whole lot more. We can forget about freedom of religion. And we can look forward to the rich paying no taxes, the rest of us paying higher taxes, and our taxes going solely towards services for the rich.

    But frankly all that is moot. We liberals have a lot of work to do and I'm not talking about our leaders alone.

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
    "d'Oh!" ~Homer
    1. Re:This is exactly what I'm talking about by Brandybuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We need to do more than just reorganize; we need to restrategize.

      And while you restrategize, you really do need to pay attention to what trb0001 is saying. You're not going to win the 2008 election by insulting the 51% of the people who voted for Bush. If you continue insulting Christians, rural inhabitants, and blue collar workers, you will lose the next election. If you want to win you need to be the party of egalitarian inclusion, not elitist exclusion.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    2. Re:This is exactly what I'm talking about by commodoresloat · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not that I disagree with you, but I don't understand why we can't say the same about Republicans? Why is it they can continue to insult minorities, non-Christians, city-dwellers, and the poor, and still win elections? I guess we don't make up 51% :(

    3. Re:This is exactly what I'm talking about by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      But the Republicans don't do this. They have become the party of inclusion. I'm not a Republican saying this, I am a Libertarian. It's not that I'm sticking up for them, it's just that I have eyes that can see. Maybe you should stop dwelling on fifty year old stereotypes and start looking out at the real world.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    4. Re:This is exactly what I'm talking about by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      Ummm, 50 years ago, a lot of the Republican were called "Dixiecrats"; get it, the "crat" meant "Democrat." The "party of inclusion"? You have got to be kidding. I realize a lot of people buy that rhetoric but look at the POLICIES Bush & Co. have pursued. I should also add "scientists" to the list of people they have been insulting.

      Anyway that's my humble 2 cents; I don't expect to convince anyone who doesn't already agree. It's just sad how polarized things have gotten.

    5. Re:This is exactly what I'm talking about by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      but look at the POLICIES Bush & Co. have pursued

      I think that's your problem right there. You're mistaking a difference in political opinion as an insult. Thus a difference in opinion over how to deal with social security is viewed as an insult to the elderly. A difference in opinion over affirmative action is seen as an insult to minorities. And so on. Well it simply isn't true.

      You talked about "Dixiecrats". Those were Democrats. They were racist. Then the Republicans did a stupid thing and started courting the Dixiecrats. But the Republicans have changed since then. That's why I said you need to abandon your stereotypes, because they were formed in the Dixiecrat days, and those days are no more.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    6. Re:This is exactly what I'm talking about by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      The Dixiecrats were democrats, yes, that's what I said. You're accusing me of casting 50 year old aspersions; if I was I would be saying things about the Democrats. But that was 50 years ago; they left the Democratic party over civil rights... and guess where they went? Get it now?

    7. Re:This is exactly what I'm talking about by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I was only responding to what you wrote. And you wrote: "a lot of the Republican were called "Dixiecrats".

      In any case that was fifty years ago. A politician in office at that time would probably have been at least thirty years of age. That would make them 80 today! Face it, those the Republicans didn't kick out died off.

      Let me be blunt. I really don't care if the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans fifty years ago, because THEY'RE DEAD NOW! Stop believing the propaganda the Democrats have been mimeographing for the last fifty years and open up your eyes!

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    8. Re:This is exactly what I'm talking about by bitwiseNomad · · Score: 1

      open up your eyes!

      The Republicans are the party of inclusion. If this is true, then I have one question. Why is the Republican leadership pushing for a *Constitutional Amendment* that will exclude consenting homosexual adults from engaging in private relationships with each other?

      Let us say for a moment that the Republican leadership really does have America's best interests in mind with this amendment. If this is true, then there must be a convincing reason why such an amendment is necessary and that it is the only efficient way of solving whatever problem we have.

      Put another way, in order to argue that this is not exclusion, you must prove without a doubt that homosexual relationships pose a direct threat to the safety of our nation and/ or the health of its economy, and what's more, you must demonstrate that the threat to our nation is so great that amending the Constitution is the only way to fix the problem. This includes showing that any law passed by Congress will fall short of the mark.

      Unless you can do both these things, you will not have proven that there is a convincing reason to have such an amendment. If no such reason exists, we must conclude that there is another motivation for pushing the amendment. Whatever that motivation is, if there is no reason why homosexual unions pose a direct threat to the safety of our country, then it follows that homosexuals are being excluded from the class of people who have the right to make their own marital and relational decisions without a convincing reason that this should be so.

      I should take this opportunity to point out that "This is a Christian nation and homosexuality is a sin" does not count as a convincing reason to ban gay relationships. Whether it is a sin or not, it does not mean that our nation will be attacked or the economy will collapse. Leadership which truly embraces inclusion would adopt policies which embrace the different lifestyles people chose to adopt, regardless of what they are.

      I would also like to add that if the ban on homosexual marriage / civil unions passes, then the Bush Administration will have passed the first amendment ever to actually exclude a group of citizens in our country from the group of people with the right to make their own decisions and decide what is right and wrong for themselves.

      Any moral legislation - any legislation at all that draws the line between *right* and *wrong* with regards to self-regarding actions and actions that exist between consenting adults is by its very nature exclusive of the people who do not hold those morals. Adults have the right to decide what is right and wrong for themselves as long as they do not harm people.

      Whenever I make this argument, people invariably bring up murder / rape / theft, et al in hopes of a rebuttal. I will answer that now. Murder, rape, theft, et al are not actions that occur between consenting adults. In each of those cases, at least one person does not want it to happen. Marriage does occur between consenting adults, and so it does not fall into the same category, regardless of whether it is between homosexuals or a man and woman.

      --

      Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
    9. Re:This is exactly what I'm talking about by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      This is miscommunication at its best. I only brought up the Dixiecrats to make fun of the idea that my argument was out of date. My whole point was that they don't matter. So we agree on that.

      I don't think all Republicans are bigots. I DO think they as a group pursue bigoted policies and that their politicians DO insult people in both their speeches and policies. Perhaps we disagree; that's fine.

    10. Re:This is exactly what I'm talking about by frenchgates · · Score: 1

      The fact that the original Dixiecrat are mostly dead is irrelevant. The point is that their legacy is thriving in the red states. Ever heard of a recently powerful politician named Trent Lott? There are far too many other examples of redneck nation's political success to mention. PS I was born and raised in South Carolina, home of the rebel flag on the state capitol, so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

      --
      Syntax error: loose != lose, affect != effect, then!=than
    11. Re:This is exactly what I'm talking about by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      If this is true, then I have one question. Why is the Republican leadership pushing for a *Constitutional Amendment* that will exclude consenting homosexual adults from engaging in private relationships with each other?

      The Republican leadership is not doing this. Some of them are calling for an amendment to strictly define marriage, but this is a far different thing from banning homosexual relationships. All preventing gay marriage does is to eliminate a tax perq. And it's a tax perq that isn't given to singles either. While you can argue all day long as to unalienable rights of homesexuals to get this tax perq, it still doesn't equate to a ban on homosexual relationships.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  49. Re:Slashdot Slant by dnhughes · · Score: 1

    I'm not exaclty a huge democrat and I don't want to see the results overturned

    While overturning the current result would cause a lot of issues with people, the official counts have not been reported. Therefore, there is not an official result, just the preliminary counts.

    It will be interesting to see what blackboxvoting.org turns up. Really how difficult is it to do some quick checks on the vote counts to look for irregularities on election night?

    --
    "When I die, I want to go quietly, like my grandfather, in his sleep... not screaming, like the passengers in his car."
  50. Re:why not? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Because there is a box on the ballot that says "Vote for all Republicans" and one that says "Vote for all Democrats", but there are no boxes that say "Vote for all Green/Libertarian/Natural/Independant/Socialist

    Where do you hail from? In New York each party has a separate line on the voting machine. If you want to do a party line vote all you need to do is find the line for your party and go all the way across pulling levers down.

    Maybe the true problem is that the Libertarians and Greens didn't bother to field any candidates for any office other then the US President (and in New York the Senate race). Haven't you ever heard the expression "All politics are local"? I didn't decide my local votes until a day or so before the election -- after I personally met with and talked to the people on the ballot. Perhaps the little parties should focus on some county executive/mayoral/assemblyman races before the White House. What's more effective? Trying to appeal to 1,000s to 10,000s of people on local issues to build a base or trying to compete with the DNC and RNC warchests?

    Just my two cents on the issue. Of course I'd rather see more use of Electoral Fusion to bring the major parties back into the mainstream -- rather then running third party candidates that either sabotage their own cause (Nader in 2000/Perot in 1992) by putting the other ideology into power or third party candidates that fail to accomplish anything (Nader this go around). I realize that's a minority opinion around here -- and I'm not trying to flame -- that's just my opinion on this issue.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  51. Re:Slashdot Slant by stanmann · · Score: 1

    The crime he was impeached for was perjury. NOT Adultery.

    In this country we have political traditions, One People in power use that power to get what they want, frequently this includes sexual favors

    Two, We'll forgive you if you apologize(It doesn't matter what, if you murdered your grandmother we'll forgive you)

    Three, If we catch you lying in court, we'll get pissed off.

    --
    Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  52. Re:Slashdot Slant by stanmann · · Score: 1

    OOPS, hit send too soon,

    four, you can apologize any time.

    Five,If you keep lying after we catch you, we will be even more pissed off.

    six, You can apologize any time.

    --
    Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  53. Re:there goes by fenris_23 · · Score: 1

    Apparently, you have not grasped the magnitude of this election.

    More than half the country voted for a candidate who most of the other voters consider one of the worst presidents in our lifetimes. Furthermore, it seems a sizeable number of those Bush voters voted for him because of their "values". Like the value to hate gays and amend the constitution to actually REMOVE civil rights. When have we ever gone backwards on civil rights?

    I don't blame people at all for wanting to leave. I wish to stay and fight but you have to admit the future is not looking very bright for open society in the U.S.

    Even if it is proven that Kerry one Ohio or Florida, we still have to face the fact that a majority of the people of this country are diametrically opposed to the principles of the open society. Frankly, this scares this shit out me.

  54. Re:why not? by heli0 · · Score: 1

    "Maybe the true problem is that the Libertarians and Greens didn't bother to field any candidates for any office other then the US President"

    That is simply untrue. The LP had 707 candidates running for elected office nationwide in positions ranging from Township Advisory Boards to State Senator and everything in between.

    http://www.lp.org/campaigns/candidates.php?year=20 04

    --
    Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
  55. Re:why not? by Wolfger · · Score: 1

    I'm from Michigan. Libertarians were running for every (or almost every) position: federal, state, and local. Greens were running for most positions. But only the dems and pubs have the boxes.

    As for the style of ballot, it's pencil and paper, with an optical scan.

    I'm just going to keep holding on for Instant Runoff Voting.

    --
    Nothing to see here. Move along.
  56. Re:why not? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    I'm just going to keep holding on for Instant Runoff Voting.

    IRV has it's own problems and is overly complex. Moreover there is absolutely no tradition of it in our Republic that I'm aware of. Electoral Fusion was/is commonplace and has more advantages IMHO.

    Of course this is still America and we are free to disagree.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  57. Re:why not? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    That is simply untrue. The LP had 707 candidates running for elected office nationwide in positions ranging from Township Advisory Boards to State Senator and everything in between.

    Then where were they in my state? They didn't bother to field a candidate for dog-catcher -- let alone any county or state-wide offices.

    And don't tell me New York is too blue. Upstate is fairly Republican/ (but not religious right Republican) and the LP message would probably find quite the audience around here.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  58. Re:hmm by mink · · Score: 1

    I agree with you about accuracy vs. precision. I was just seeing a lot of :
    Someone points out some vote problem, second person launches off into "why cant you liberals accept...".

    Granted there are a few nut jobs (originally I typoed that as netjobs, maybe we need a new word for netkook) saying the election has been stolen, but like I said, I doubt once all the errors are found (that we can find) and fixed the overall outcome would be still Bush in the White House.

    I think the entire race up till 2nd day after was a sham. Not the votes, but the way the candidates and the supporters behaved towards each other and the public who was voting.

    I've finally (after only legally being able to vote for 4 presidential elections) gotten sick of things enough to try to find out what I can do to change things.

    On a different topic. In your sig, are you referring to a Native American or someone from India?

    --
    Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  59. How I know my vote counted. by Tyndmyr · · Score: 1
    At least they didnt loose mine...I voted absentee in MN, and was mildly worried that something would happen to it, since its discomforting not to have the sureness of dropping it in the box myself.

    Well, I called home election morning, to discuss the outcome. I was informed of the progress of my vote through the system. No...they dont work at the polls. Apparently I was the only person in my district to vote for Badnarik, and some people found it amusing... I have renewed faith in the secrecy protection of the current system, as well as the intellectual level of poll workers/my fellow voters.

    Not that I intend to stop voting Lib...just get others to do the same.

    --
    Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
  60. Re:hmm by 0x20 · · Score: 1

    if bush understood the problem, wouldn't his "problem-solving" methods have made the middle east situation better by now, instead of much, much worse?

    personally i doubt that bush understands much of anything beyond how to fasten his pants in the morning.

    -a "librrrl" in florida

  61. Re:hmm by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    I was just seeing a lot of :
    Someone points out some vote problem, second person launches off into "why cant you liberals accept...".

    Which is the same point I made in my original post, which has now been modded to -1 Troll. The post to which I responded did not just point out a vote problem, he pointed out a vote problem and said this was obvious proof that the Republicans rigged the election and stole it from the democrats. Then I launched off into "why can't you liberals accept..." I'm not denying vote problems. I'm denying that the Republicans stole the election.

    My sig is from Aqua Teen Hungerforce, when Ignignot, one of the Mooninites, declares that his god is an indian (native american) who turns into a wolf, and he will come for you with his razor. That's the plot of the horror camp classic "Wolfen." It's all very silly, really. Hilarious show.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  62. Re:why not? by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

    There was a LP candidate running for Congress here that I saw in the debates. He wasn't too impressive while the republican incumbent Ann Northrup was. I seem to remember winning my a decent margin. The LP candidate didn't have much suppoer.

    The problem with the third party candidates for me at leasst is that their ideas are too extreme for me. I consider myself a moderate who leans slightly to the right on some issues. The problem is that I agree more with both the Democrates and Republicans than I do with the third parties.

    Third parties seem to take a more ideological stance than a practical one. That's just my opinion though. In order for a 3rd party to get my support, they are going to need to tone down their idealism and propose solutions that make sense instead of taking the "turn the country inside out" approach. I am all for change but I don't think sudden drastic change is the way to go.

    --
    Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
  63. The faulty machines were not Diebold by ugmoe · · Score: 5, Informative
    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041105/D865SVN80 .html Franklin County's unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry's 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Bush's total should have been recorded as 365.

    Franklin is the only Ohio county to use Danaher Controls Inc.'s ELECTronic 1242, an older-style touchscreen voting system. Danaher did not immediately return a message for comment.

    1. Re:The faulty machines were not Diebold by elhaf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Right, the Diebold machines didn't get caught. Please support http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/.

      --
      Six score characters.
      Brevity being wit's soul
      I have enough space.
    2. Re:The faulty machines were not Diebold by theantix · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Please see my reply to the other person who replied to me. Note the timestamp is before you tried to "correct" me?

      Sheesh, and they say liberals have no sense of humour -- you right wingers are still quite uppity. You'd think after completely destroying the Democrats you'd learn to relax a little bit.

      --
      501 Not Implemented
    3. Re:The faulty machines were not Diebold by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      > Indeed. Please see my reply to the other person who replied to me. Note the timestamp is before you tried to "correct" me?

      His correction wasn't completely for your benefit, you know. It's also for all the people browsing the thread, who may or may not have seen his earlier correction (depends on how things get modded).

      Erm... that's all. This message isn't meant to be hostile, by the way.

      --
      [PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
  64. Ooooooooookaaaaaaay.... by Damek · · Score: 1
    Somebody forgot to eat his wheaties today...



    (and it isn't me)

  65. Re:Keep those conspiracy theories coming by lottameez · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it more important for you to be a Republican than an American? Who exactly is your "enemy"?

    --
    Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
  66. Mainstream media? by metroid+composite · · Score: 3, Informative

    Okay, turned on the news wondering what kind of spin CNN would have on this. Didn't come up. So I started doing searches....

    CNN
    Foxnews
    BBC
    CBC
    Aljzeera's search engine is not working properly today; oh well.
    Ohio News Now

    Anyone care to tell me why this simply isn't being reported at all? I've never heard of the Columbus Dispatch. Nor have I heard of the Washington Dispatch (one other place I've seen run the story).

    Is it too new to be picked up?
    Is it not considered newsworthy as just correcting a routine error?
    Is it being censored? And if so then why by every news company including those outside of US juristiction?

    Forgive me for being a bit skeptical on this story, but I do tend to assume that vote talliers can spot an order of magnitude error.

    1. Re:Mainstream media? by deus_X_machina · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean the same CNN who is reporting this?

      Or perhaps the San Fransisco gate reporting it.

      Maybe Yahoo New's report?

      C'mon man, turn on the TV... normally I'd say just because it's not in the mainstream media doesn't mean it's not true. But this time it is...

      --
      "In a Democracy, people get the kind of government they deserve." -Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Mainstream media? by physicsnerd · · Score: 1
      The story's now up on CNN

      http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.p roblems.ap/index.html

    3. Re:Mainstream media? by metroid+composite · · Score: 1
      Excellent. Thanks for the links they are quite helpful, and I now have the answer to my question:

      CNN: Friday, November 5, 2004 Posted: 4:15 PM EST (2115 GMT)
      Friday November 05, @04:23PM (#10737909)

      a) Too new a story to be picked up.

      So there you have it: you heard it on Slashdot first! (And yes, I do take more than seven minutes to write my posts...).
      normally I'd say just because it's not in the mainstream media doesn't mean it's not true.

      I certainly agree. The question is why a story is not in the mainstream media. In the event of corporate censorship, that's a very serious concern which extends beyond the scope of a mere election. In the event that it's "not newsworthy" then I'd question their judgement and search for a different news source more in line with my interests. In the event that the news station did background checks that debunked the story, that's certainly worth knowning as well. (And when they're just slow to report it, then it doesn't mean much of anything).
    4. Re:Mainstream media? by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 1

      I've never heard of the Columbus Dispatch.

      They are the only real newspaper in Columbus and they endorsed Bush during the election. I live in Columbus but don't read the dispatch often enough to vouch for its integrity. I imagine it is more or less on par with other big city papers.

    5. Re:Mainstream media? by demachina · · Score: 1

      It was on CNN Headline news briefly today. Unfortunately they did what everyone is going to do, they said it was a "glitch" and everyone knows computers have "glitches" so the possibility it was due to foul play didn't even come up. Its a story that wont have any legs unless more of these popup, or someone finds a smoking gun, which is unlikely since no one in government or the media is even looking for a smoking gun and private groups are unlikely to have the access and resources to find or if they due get anyone to listen.

      Its curious this glitch happened in machines that aren't widely deployed. Maybe the glitch came in someone trying to rig Ohio. They probably focused a lot of attention on a subtle way to rig punch cards which were the most widely used method in Ohio. They almost certainly have lavished attention on using Diebold's machines to rig an election though they weren't used much or at all in Ohio. Maybe here they didn't invest enough time in figuring out how to rig these machines, unwidely tried anyway, so they completely botched it and it stood out like a sore thumb. Elsewhere they just managed to discard a few percent of the Democratic/minority vote (punchcard spoilage being the classic way) or vote flipping from Kerry to Bush which is the preferred way in electronic voting since you can't discard any votes.

      --
      @de_machina
  67. Re:there goes by lottameez · · Score: 1

    Ya know, I voted for Kerry, and yet a lot of my closest friends are Republicans. It's hardly as if 50 million of your neighbors are bible-thumping mindless bigots. And although I disagree strongly (and sometimes bitterly) with my friends, I get more irritated by those who paint them with a broad brush. These are people trying to make a living and trying to do the right things.

    Stay and fight? What the hell is wrong with you people? Kerry lost the election. It ain't the end of the world. The democrats need to stop letting the republican party leadership define what the democrats stand for. That's when you'll see things change.

    IMO, the problem is with the democrat party leadership, not your fellow citizens.

    --
    Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
  68. Re:hmm by Danse · · Score: 2, Informative

    They were probably balanced out by the criminal and borderline criminal acts the Democrats engaged in prior to the election.

    Umm, actually no, they weren't. Read about it here. You may want to skip about 2/3s of the way down the page to this part:

    This is the way these stories go. Both sides make charges that seem roughly the same. But on this issue, there is a qualitative difference between Democrats and Republicans. I called both camps and asked them to give me their worst stuff about the other side. Here's what the Republican spokesman, Scott Hogenson, said.

    [Scott] We have been compiling hundreds of pages of media reports from all over the country of documented cases of investigations of fraudulent voter registration cases. Everything from police in Ohio investigating a pro-Kerry effort to submit faulty voter registration forms, then pay the people with crack cocaine, to a gentleman in Denver, CO, who brags and laughs on television about having registered to vote 35 times, that it's just the... the number and degree of faulty and questionable and outright fraudulent registrations is really quite stunning in its depth and breadth.

    [Reporter voiceover resumes] He sent me a copy. It's all newspaper clips, many of them unverified charges. There are a few that check out. There really was, for example, this white guy working for an outfit affiliated with the NAACP, who registered voters under names like Mary Poppins and Jeffrey Dahmer, and it's true, he was paid in crack cocaine. Very bad... and a great story. And then there was the Colorado guy who registered himself 35 times. Also true. Also very bad. But the reason you're going to be hearing about these two examples over and over in the offical Republican talking points in the next few days is that that's the best they've got in their hundreds of pages.


    This sums it up though:

    "So, are they all the same? Is the crackhead faking a handful of registrations for Jeffrey Dahmer the same kind of thing as wiping 17,000 voters in Nevada, 23,000 voters in Florida, 30,000 voters in Ohio completely off the rolls?"
    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  69. Re:hmm by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    Exactly...we don't see the problem the same way. I see it as a long-term problem, as does Bush. We see it as a cultural problem, that Islamo-fascism will not stop until the Arab world is changed, and reshaping Iraq is part of that long-term plan. Things will be worse for a little while, and eventually much better once freedom and democracy spread through the middle east.

    It's kind of like saying that FDR's plan for halting Japanese agression was bad because more people died after Pearl Harbor. Things have to get worse before they get better.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  70. Re:Slashdot Slant by hawkbug · · Score: 1

    Clearly, you need to brush up on your uses of the word fuck:

    http://www.ebaumsworld.com/fwordflash.html

  71. Re:there goes by fenris_23 · · Score: 1

    It's hardly as if 50 million of your neighbors are bible-thumping mindless bigots

    I never claimed all 50 million of them were bigots but since you brought it up:

    approximately "one-fifth of voters who pointed to 'moral values' as their prime concern, 79 percent of them voted for George Bush." - bpnews

    That is at least 39 million of them.

  72. Re:hmm by Leftist+Troll · · Score: 1

    It's kind of like saying that FDR's plan for halting Japanese agression was bad because more people died after Pearl Harbor. Things have to get worse before they get better.

    The Japanese government attacked us. The Iraqi government did not. This time we were the ones pre-emptively striking.

    Big difference.

  73. oops, jim march link wrong by gotih · · Score: 1

    oops, that first link should have been to Jim March. he goes into how COTS (commercial, off the shelf) hardware and software is used in these machines because it doesn't have to pass such stringent certification process. the idea being that you can just compare the software from a factory install with the software from a store and confirm that the company didn't make any changes. but winCE is not COTS -- diebold has the source code and windows specifically considers it non-COTS.

    --

    fear is the mind killer
  74. Re:there goes by fenris_23 · · Score: 1

    I am sorry. I misread the quotation and must correct the number to roughly 18 million -- which is still roughly 1/3 of the people voting for Bush. How many of those hold homophobic values is anybody's guess.

    The fact remains that was enough to tip the popular vote in his favor.

  75. fear has everything to do with it by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
    So, in other words, you voted on FEAR, because you were afraid that Kerry couldn't fight the terrorists as well as Bush. Never mind that it shows how little you actually understand terrorism or the war against it -- I mean, Bush's strategy on the war on terrorism has been a DISMAL failure, and he has done little besides "appease the perpetrators" in your words -- but don't pretend fear had nothing to do with it, when it's obvious that was your central concern. If there's a fire in the kitchen, it is exactly FEAR that makes you reach for the extinguisher faster. In any case, I admit I voted for Kerry out of fear -- of a number of things but particularly of four more years of Bush's disastrous record on the war on terrorism, which has made Americans FAR less safe than we were four years ago. I wish I could say I knew for certain that Kerry would have done the right thing (which is NOT "appeasement"), but I can't -- he was not the best candidate in a lot of ways. But after seeing what four years of Bush has done I was willing to take the risk because Kerry couldn't possibly have been worse than Bush has been (and likely will be).

    *sigh* I know I'm only preaching to the converted here; whatever....

    1. Re:fear has everything to do with it by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I think it's great that, knowing nothing about me, you know exactly why I voted the way I did, and my emotional state. You must be psychic.

      Sarcasm aside, no, fear is the absolute wrong word. Fear has nothing to do with it. You make it sound like it's some kind of paniced response. Yes, it's a serious problem, but there are solutions, and I voted for the solution I thought was best.

      You say that I don't understand the problem. I make the charge that you and John Kerry do not understand the nature of the problem or the way to develop an effective solution.

      Generally, the justifications I hear from liberals for terrorism involve primarily economic concerns. Oil, poverty, etc. I charge that this has nothing to do with it. Islamic fascism arrises from a cultural and religious base that no amount of lack of involvement in the affairs of the middle east will cure. The fascists have not declared war on the United States, but on western culture in general. This is why they bomb trains in Spain and nightclubs in Germany and attack schools in Russia (yes, those were mostly Arabs, not just Chechnians).

      Islam today is the Islam of 500 years, which is the same as the Christianity of 500 years ago. The difference is that while Christianity had a reformation, in which they came to realize, after a few centuries of warfare, that our governments and churches were best kept seperate, and that we could live in peace with other religions, Islam did not. Worse, Islam is not a religion. Islam is a culture--a way of life. Mohammed was not just a prophet, but a statesman, and a military commander. The Koran tells not just how to worship, but how to run your government and your business. And, the Muslim world interpretes this literally. Infidels are not to be tolerated. They are to be converted or killed. Kerry and liberals in the west, who do not understand religion in general as they are not religious themselves, assume that Muslim fanatics are much like them, concerned with economics and stability and fairness and every other ideal of the liberal west. This is not the case. Their concerns are far deeper than that, and no amount of appeasement will satisfy them.

      There are two problems. One is short-term, and one is long-term. First, in the short term, we must guard against further attacks from terrorist networks like Al Qaeda. The importance of this cannot be understated. It is the stated goal of Osama Bin Laden to acquire a nuclear device and set it off in the United States. Complain as you will about the cost of the war on terror (we're up to about $200 billion and 1,100 American lives plus an unknown but large number of Arabs), but imagine the cost, both human and economic, of a nuclear explosion in New York, Chicago, L.A., or all three.

      The long term problem is that, as many terrorists as we strike down, more will grow in their place, because of the nature of their culture. Since the problem is rooted in their culture, we must solve it in their culture.

      So, George Bush attacks both of these problems. First, in the short term, he invades Afghanistan to disrupt and destroy as much of Al Qaeda as possible. To combat the long term problem he establishes a democracy in Afghanistan. The war in Iraq is also making progress towards both of these goals. Al Qaeda training camps operated in Iraq. Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction. He most likely had stockpiles of these that were trucked into Syria before the war. He gave aid an monetary assistance to Al Qaeda leaders. He gave money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. Clearly, this is a front in the short-term war on terror. In the long term, Iraq among the most respressive regimes in the world, and is in the heart of the middle east. If we're going to change the culture of the Arab world, we need to show them a better way. A secular democracy flourising in the heart of the middle east, which a prosperous free market economy and a free press, will become the jewel of the middle east

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:fear has everything to do with it by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      I'm not psychic; I'm basing what I said on what you posted. If you voted based on terrorism, you voted out of fear. Your fear of admitting that fact is irrelevant. I don't think it is a problem to have fear of terrorism -- I fear terrorism (among other things) which is why I voted for Kerry. But I chose Kerry because he was better than Bush -- not because he has the right answer, because I don't think he does. But I know for a fact that Bush has the WRONG answer, that he let al Qaeda regroup in Afghanistan while he went chasing after Saddam. And you're wrong; al Qaeda had NO camps in Iraq, unless you count the MEK camps -- MEK was associated with al Qaeda but their camps were in the US-controlled no-fly zones and we were giving them fucking money!! NOW, thanks to Bush's family grudge against Saddam, Iraq is crawling with al Qaeda members as well as many new terrorist organizations that we know next to nothing about. And don't forget that Bush gave al Qaeda almost a month to get out of the camps in Afghanistan after 9-11 because he spent the time trying to talk his advisers into invading Iraq first!

      I know what you're saying about a lot of liberals who think that terrorism is caused by poverty, etc.; and rest assured I am not one of those, and I think that kind of thinking is as wrong headed as you do. I think we need a leader that will go after the real terrorists directly.

      But you're living in a fantasy world when you say the success of Bush's war on terror is amazing. The war on terror is not about bringing women the vote in Afghanistan. It is about killing the terrorists and marginalizing them in the rest of the Islamic world so they do not get more recruits. It is true that democracy in the middle east will help that, and I HOPE you're right that we are on the road to that, but EVERYTHING I see coming out of Iraq in terms of news and most of it in Afghanistan suggests the opposite -- that we are on the road to chaos, especially in Iraq, if not on the road to more radical Islamist regimes. I hated Saddam Hussein -- and I hated him since the 80s, when Reagan was giving him money and chemical weapons, rather than just discovering my hatred after George Bush wanted to impress his Daddy, like many Republicans -- but at least he was a SECULAR dictator who kept the radical Islamists at bay. We have a LOT of work to do just to get back to where things were in terms of terrorism in 2002, much less to really confront the challenges of 9/11. Sadly, it will be another four years of errors, scandals, and manipulation before we do.

      Speaking of scandals and manipulation, don't forget that most of the "evidence" of WMD and Iraqi terrorist connections that turned out to be false came through foreign agents working for Iran. I think you're right that Iran is our next problem but I fear that Bush allowed this country to be manipulated into a war with Iraq that actually puts Iran in a much stronger position.

    3. Re:fear has everything to do with it by Grym · · Score: 1

      I'm not psychic; I'm basing what I said on what you posted. If you voted based on terrorism, you voted out of fear.

      I'm not the author of the grandparent post, and yet, I too voted for Bush because of his stance with regard to the war on terrorism.

      And, while liberals on Slashdot think they can psychoanalyze (or is "condescend" the word I'm looking for?) fifty-nine million people all in one sweeping accusation, I (and I can only speak for myself) did not vote out of fear. I voted because I feel that GWB's plan is the right one. I feel Islamic extremism is undeniably evil, and it's this generation's responsibility to put an end to it seeing as how we are in the unique position to do so.

      The way I see it, we are at an important historical juncture--one in which we can finally stamp out Islamic extremism that has plagued the world since slightly before the beginning of the Crusades (when a violent interpretation of the Koran, beginning in Southern Spain took root) via the plan the grandparent briefly layed out. Even if he understood the problem, (and I have no idea if he does, because of his cryptic statements) John Kerry, in my opinion, lacks the initiate and drive to solve it. The right decision isn't always the popular one, and in these cases, following the polls and focus groups will only make the problem worse.

      -Grym

    4. Re:fear has everything to do with it by jcr · · Score: 1

      MM,

      I think you're really glossing over the diversity of the Muslim world. I lived in Indonesia when I was a kid, and islam there was pretty much like christianity here: you go through the motions to keep your grandparents happy, but you don't let it get in the way of having a good time.

      The problem of radicalization is that basically, that the Saudi royals made a deal with the devil: they give the Wahabbis money in exchange for not getting overthrown for their appalling corruption and moral terpitude. The Wahabbis use that money to set up madrassas all over the world that teach a vicious, fascistic version of Islam to kids in countries where Islam used to be a benign thing. Poor parents in those countries send their kids to the free Whabbi schools, where they are taught to hate us along with their reading, writing and arithmetic.

      Add to that the fact that in most Arab countries, the only way to get away with being a dissident at all, is to at least pretend to be a cleric. Arab governments who happily destroy opposition newspapers are very hesitant about interfering with a mosque.

      If all Muslims were Sufis, we wouldn't have an islamic terrorism problem. Imagine if all Christians were Quakers, and you'll get the picture.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    5. Re:fear has everything to do with it by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's Bush who is making the problem worse. Much worse. It is going to take decades to roll back Islamic extremism just to the point that it was at before Bush responded to 9-11. But if you think we're still fighting the Crusades, you are not going to understand this anyway. But don't pretend it's not fear when you say you want a president who will save you from Islamic extremism. Surely you are capable of at least understanding that.

    6. Re:fear has everything to do with it by Grym · · Score: 1

      I'm not pretending that we're fighting the Crusades. In fact, I don't think this is at all related to Christianity. The use of the word "Crusades" was to provide you with a reference to the period in history I was describing.

      I'm not supporting Bush because I'll think he'll "save" me from Islamic extremism. Again, you along with the rest of the liberals who can never be wrong, are putting words in my mouth. I feel that Islamic extremism is a problem that faces the world and that GWB has the correct plan to solve it despite its unpopular nature. I'm supporting a political opinion.

      Why do you guys even participate in democracy if you consider any opinion that differs from yours based on ignorance, fear, or bigotry? If you expect everyone to feel the same way on every issue as yourself, why even bother with the formality of voting?

      -Grym

    7. Re:fear has everything to do with it by commodoresloat · · Score: 1
      First, after he won the election and the popular vote, I'm not sure you can pretend W's "solution" is unpopular anymore.

      Second, why are you so afraid to acknowledge fear of terrorism? It's not a bad thing. I voted for Kerry based in part on fear of terrorism. I don't expect anyone to "save" us either, but I do fear it and would like a president whose plan I think will diminish it. I don't fear it personally -- the risk of any individual being attacked by terrorists is pretty slim -- but I do fear it in terms of what it does to our country and around the world. People blowing up planes, beheading Americans, etc. is scary. Fear does not have to mean you curl into a fetal ball and close your eyes.

      I've made the arguments above why I think GWB is wrong on terrorism. I think his record speaks for itself; terrorism has increased massively since the invasion of Iraq (I think the invasion of Afghanistan was appropriate but that we should have stuck with it until we destroyed al Qaeda and OBL) and we have given Islamist militants a new place to thrive (Iraq) complete with weapons that we aren't watching for them to steal and a riled up populace who keeps losing civilian relatives to US bombs to recruit.

      Finally, in response to your whine about "why do you bother to vote" - I don't expect everyone to feel the same as me, and I do value the fact that we have a democracy with different opinions. I'm not sure I said anything that suggests otherwise. Are you saying that if I vote I should just keep my opinions to myself, or ONLY express them at the ballot box? Voting is only one aspect of the democratic tradition. Public deliberation is another.

  76. Re:hmm by Experiment+626 · · Score: 1

    What really happened is that fear won. Fear of terrorism, fear of gay marriage, fear of a lot of things.

    Why does the left always try to dismiss things as "fear" rather than try to understand why people actually hold different opinions than they do? You're hardly the first to make this error, as phrases like "homophobia" demonstrate.

    Here is a revelation for you. People can disagree with the opinions and values of others for reasons besides fear. Does the ACLU oppose prayer in schools out of "fear"? (oh no, if I hear someone quote the Bible I might spontaneously convert to Christianity, give away all my worldly belongings, and go off on a missionary trip to some remote part of the world) Do opponents of the Iraq war criticize it because of "fear"? (Any day now Saddam is going to break out of jail and launch a counter attack that will kill us all!) Of course not. Trying to trivialize the different values and opinions of others by dismissing them as "fear" is arrogant and highly intolerant of the diverse reasons for which people take positions on issues which, believe it or not, involves more than just fear.

  77. I'm a Diebold employee! by ugmoe · · Score: 1
    I'm a Diebold employee.

    You make a post on Slashdot - read my millions of nerds - on a thread about defective voting machines, saying that Diebold machines have told us that Bush won the election.

    I post a clarification along with a link describing the actual manufacturer of the defective voting equipment and explain that these were not Diebold machines - and for this you call me an uppity right winger with no sense of humour?

  78. Re:hmm by 0x20 · · Score: 1

    "freedom and democracy" - which really means the freedom to hand over your natural resources to the US, and enjoy a new puppet regime, installed by the US under the guise of a phony election, which is more than glad to facilitate such process.

    i'm sure the Islamic world would appreciate your view that their culture is a "problem" and we must solve it by replacing it with our culture. nothing like total homogenization for a stronger future, right?

    it's just laughable to compare this situation with World War II. if our actions are so just, where is the support of the rest of the world? looking around, i see condemnation and refusal of support, and rightfully so. this is a war for money, for corporate plundering rights, and half of this country, along with the rest of the world, sees right through this "stay the course" "presidenting is hard" bullshit.

    the terms freedom and democracy have received more than enough abuse from the right in the last four years. this must be some new definition of those terms that only exists in Webster's New Republican & Libertarian Edition.

  79. Re:hmm by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    Please read this post in which I explain the nature of the Islamic threat and the war on terrorism.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  80. Goes both ways man... by NEOtaku17 · · Score: 1

    "What really happened is that fear won. Fear of terrorism, fear of gay marriage, fear of a lot of things."

    Fear of a draft, fear of loss of freedoms, fear that old people won't be able to afford their medicine. You know you can say it was fear that made people vote for Bush but an equal number of Democrats voted in fear as well. From my perspective it is rather clear why the Democrats lost this round: The Democratic party's own intolerance and mockery of religion is what caused their loss. Until they realise that the US is a very religious nation and fixes their lack of tolerance for them they will never win another election. Also making fun of people living in rural areas and calling them stupid isn't going to win their support IMHO.

    --
    Creative Demolition
  81. The answer by Kjyn · · Score: 1

    the cartridge was retested yesterday and there were no problems. He couldn't explain why the computer reader malfunctioned.

    Because yesterday the date wasn't November 2nd. /cynic

  82. If there is a problem, let's find it now. by DangerSteel · · Score: 1
    I hope there is no "built in bias" in these voting machines but if there is a problem I'd like to have them discovered now. Let's face it, if they can change the votes, they can print up whatever kind of bar code thay want to justify it. Im sure there will be twice as many electronic voting machines in the next election.

    On a hopeful note I saw an article on CNN's website that MIT and the California Institute of Tech has requested logs and raw data from machines from every county that had electronic voting to study the data and look for possible mistakes. I believe if there is a problem these guys will find it.

  83. Re:Keep those conspiracy theories coming by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

    Truly amazing. That this got marked down to "-1, Flamebait" indicates that the Democrats not only lost the election, they lost all sense of humor too.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  84. Voting: Stuck in the 19th century by cyranoVR · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I.
    Wall Street has volume in the hundreds of millions per hour. Every transaction must be documented and has a paper trail (or backup report) somewhere, and every participant can be held accountable. Failure to comply with the law can and does result in jail time for offenders.

    II.
    We have a world-wide network of ATM machines. Each produces a paper receipt, often with an internal duplicate copy for auditing purposes. Each customer has a unique network ID and a secret PIN. Many systems automatically detects fraud-like activity automatically notify customers via cell-phone within one minute of transaction being completed. Again: hundreds-of-thousands, even millions, of transactions happening hourly.

    III.
    The Federal Reserve processes millions of "paper ballots" (cheques) daily. Each "ballot" is optically scanned and routed to the correct party, with errors approaching zero. Fair system: errors totaling 0.01 dollars or greater are penalized with a monetary fine. 100% accuracy rate built-in and required by law.

    Even during the 9/11 terrorist attack, the New York Federal Reserve - one block from WTC - managed move their operation to New Jersey and complete day's "ballot" processing.

    Conclusion #1
    "Help" America Vote Act is Orwellian double-speak at its finest. Federal Elections demand a Federal Employees, Federal Training, Federal Standard. We can have separate elections with their own method for local/state/federal offices. State/Local constitutions can easily be amended to this end - should be uncontroversial.

    Federal elections should be fully staffed and trained, just like the TSA (Transportaion Security Administration). Some will argue that Federal Government is wrong solution for problem and will advocate private corporations as a solution. Some people are morons. TSA is many magnitudes superior to pre-existing private security (equivalent: Diebold), which allowed 9/11 slaughter. At the very least, system can be audited without resorting to lawsuit.

    Conclusion #2
    As with securities exchange, ATM, Federal Reserve examples cited above, electoral process can & should have accuracy approaching 100% accuracy and same-day efficiency. Primary obstacle is lack of incentive. All examples cited involve monetary transactions, which Americans are notorious for valuing above Liberty.

    Ergo, values of average politician/American must change to value liberty. Of course, the only party that can change things is the party in power, and as long as they are in power "the system works" (Note: not a cut at any particular party, as this cuts both ways).

    Real change will only occur after nation-destroying election scandal and ensuing violent revolution. Call me an optimist.

    Unfortunately, many choose ruminate about voter irregularities as being part of a imperfect, but practical, system. We often hear these folks, when confronted with vote tally irregularies, shake their head and sigh "perhaps we'll never know for sure."

    This attitude is completely unacceptable when elections are being decided by 1,000 votes out of 2 million.

    Consider:
    If my employer's Daily Statement of Condition was off by $1,000 out of $2MM, and I told our Controller that "perhaps we'll never know" why the difference existed, I would be fired immediately.

    It's mind-blowing that certain parties feel this is acceptable standard for United States electoral system.

    Problem: how to make voting analogous to monetary transactions?

    A MODEST PROPOSAL
    Make the election a lottery. Ten lucky voters get $10,000,000 tax-free. Winning chances would be better than "Powerball," which has far more than 100,000,000 tickets and odds of winning approaching zero. Turnout would easily top 60% each election, and voters would demand election integrity to ensure their chance for jackpot.

    This is a no-brainer proposition that will never become reality in current America. Sometimes genius isn't a

    1. Re:Voting: Stuck in the 19th century by undef24 · · Score: 1

      me too.

  85. Thrown-Out Votes/Extinction by Bernie+Sanders · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It's difficult to tell whether the electronic voting machines are better than the punch-card ballots that became famous in Florida in 2000, but its obvious that neither system is desirable. In Canada they use pencil and paper, and it seems to work quite well.

    Flaws in computerized voting could explain why the exit polls were so inconsistent with the election results. Other explanations have been presented, most notably in this recent article from Greg Palast:

    http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1104-36.htm

    Is that merely wishful thinking? I'm not convinced. I am convinced that it's a shame that so many votes in poor neighborhoods are routinely thrown out. Is anybody expecting this to be fixed by '08? Frankly, I'll consider it a minor miracle if we last that long.

  86. Re:hmm by spuzzzzzzz · · Score: 1

    I voted for Bush because of his stance on the war on Islamic fascism. Terrorism is their method, but it's not their method we're fighting...it's their culture and ideology. I voted for Bush because I don't think Kerry understands the nature of the problem or how to correct it. I think George Bush does.

    I've heard this argument quite a bit. The problem I have with it is that it makes that assumption that war can be a successful method of fighting terror. Can you provide a 20th century example in which war succeeded in stopping terrorism?

    Because I can name several examples in which it hasn't. I even have an example in which negotiations (ie. being soft on terror) have succeeded:

    Ireland - terror ended through negotiations
    Israel - regular terrorist attacks continue despite 50 years of war
    Sri Lanka - War didn't defeat the Tamil Tigers; negotiations/ceasefire are progressing
    Colombia - terrorism shows no signs of stopping despite huge military expenditure

    Can you name an example in which military force has worked? I'm restricting this to the 20th/21st century here because methods of warfare and terrorism have changed dramatically since the days of the Barbary Pirates.

    --

    Don't you hate meta-sigs?
  87. Re:there goes by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

    The odd thing is, I voted against Bush and against Utah's gay marriage ban. If asked, I would have said that my vote was compelled by "moral values". I consider it a moral imperative to protect the environment, assist the poor, treat homosexuals like real people with real feelings, and to improve the lot of the average person.

    For other people, "values" is a code word for curbing abortion rights and marginalizing gays. People like that confound me, even though I think I'm making an honest effort to understand. I'm left thinking that there are a few very rich, very active people laying out a political strategy whereby they can get public support for policies that steal that public blind for their profit.

    Somehow, I don't think telling fifty-eight million people that they're a bunch of dupes is the winning message that will return the Democrats to power in 2008.

    --

    You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  88. Re:hmm by Grym · · Score: 1

    I've heard this argument quite a bit. The problem I have with it is that it makes that assumption that war can be a successful method of fighting terror.

    No, you're right. War is not a successful method of fighting terror. In fact, foreign wars only create terrorism as they create conditions which make individuals turn to such things as extremist religions.

    Unfortunately, what you fail to see is that our strategy isn't based upon killing as many terrorists as possible. We can agree that such a plan would be stupid. And as many have criticized the Bush Administration for, we have much better targets than Iraq if that were the plan.

    The real goal is establishing an economically successful, democratic muslim society. Now THAT would completely undermine the arabic cultural influences that promote extremism, which WOULD lead to less terrorism. And Iraq is the most ideal place to establish one. They have just been freed from the oppression of a brutal despot. Unlike Saudi-Arabia they have a large middle-class. And, most of all, they have abundant the technology and natural resources that will bring prosperity and trade with the rest of the world.

    Regardless of what you think of the man himself, Bush undeniably has some smart people around him. The evil-genius depictions on Slashdot of Karl Rove only serve to verify this. I believe that the military involvement in Iraq was a short-term piece of a cognizant long-term strategy. Is it risky? Yes. Is it popular? Obviously not! But if it works, the United States, Iraq, and the rest of the world will stand to benefit.

    -Grym

  89. Re:hmm by spuzzzzzzz · · Score: 1, Interesting

    No, you're right.

    OMG, I think this is the first time I have ever agreed with a Bush supporter ;-). Just goes to show how much flaming and lack of serious discussion there is (on both sides, of course).

    We still disagree on one thing, however. Namely, I don't think invading Iraq was a good first step towards setting up a functioning democracy there. By invading Iraq, the US has built up a lot of anti-American sentiment among Iraqis. Although it would be nice, I can't see a popularly elected Iraqi government being well-disposed to the West. Furthermore, if the aim is to replace a fundamentalist Islamist state with a democracy, Iraq was a pretty silly choice because it wasn't a religious state. Why not support the reform movement in Iran instead? The Ayatollahs there are already beginning to allow a little bit of freedom; why not give them positive reinforcement instead of threatening them by invading their neighbour pre-emptively?

    There are many less intrusive ways of establishing a democracy. In Burma, diplomatic pressure helped Aung San Suu Kyi's democracy movement immensely (it's too bad that diplomatic pressure disappeared after 9/11 because the democracy movement has been swept under the rug since then).

    Saddam Hussein was a corrupt dictator and he did what corrupt dictators do best (be corrupt). I'm sure the US could have offered him some sweet deals on the side in exchange for a gradual loosening of his power. Anyway, this is all speculation. The difference of opinion here seems to be that you think the occupation of Iraq might lead to a stable democracy. I think it won't, and that there are better ways to bring about freedom for people under oppressive regimes. I guess only time will tell.

    --

    Don't you hate meta-sigs?
  90. This really isn't anything new. by jcr · · Score: 1

    Ballot-box stuffing has been going on for as long as there have been ballot boxes. Nothing short of a massive (and I do mean MASSIVE) public outcry is going to make the election authorities clean up their act.

    Secure and verifiable electronic voting systems are possible, but we won't get them unless the people who bought the diebold machines are put behind bars.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  91. Re:hmm by jcr · · Score: 1

    While I agree with you about rational people being able to discus the best canidate, that hasn't been what presidential elecctions elections have been about for quite a while now. They are about image.

    Bingo!

    Ever since Old Joe Kennedy beat Nixon, both parties got that message loud and clear. More radio listeners thought Nixon won the debates. More TV viewers thought Kennedy won.

    Four years later, when Pierre Salinger came up with his brilliant smear ad that made it look like Goldwater wanted to kill children with nuclear weapons, that was all she wrote for substance in presidential elections.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  92. Re:hmm by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It was so much fear as disgust. They're both reprehensible, and Kerry was somewhat more so.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  93. Re:there goes by fenris_23 · · Score: 1

    There is nothing odd about it. People resisted the Civil Rights movement with an appeal to their moral values. The emancipation of slaves was resisted out of an appeal to moral values. Chief Justice Taney acted out of his sense of moral value in the Dred Scott decision.

    I believe there are two kinds of morals. Irrational and Rational. Irrational morals can be born from disparate sources such as religion and hate. There is nothing intrinsically wrong the concept of them other than the fact that they are not defendable. Rational morals are those that are derived from reason and discourse. We can argue about them and make informed policy decisions based upon them.

    This is not to say that there is something wrong with religious values or that they are inferior. The problem is that we cannot govern our society based upon them. They cannot be defended. Not one person has made a reasonable argument for the restriction of gay marriage. They ramble about historical definitions and sanctity.

    We are supposed to live in an open society where our laws are normative. We decide upon the laws and standards of our society based upon reason. They are not imposed upon us from the sky or from religion. The harm caused by this administration is that they are willfully eroding the openness of our society for political gain. It is reprehensible.

  94. Re:why not? by mjanosko · · Score: 1

    I beg to differ.
    In PA, where i live, there is the option to vote Libertarian, Green and Constitution the whole way across.

  95. Re:It doesn't matter by macromegas · · Score: 1

    ... and in case that isn't what you want take alook at a real alternatives: http://www.wsws.org/

    --
    Life has become the ideology of its absence - T.W. Adorno
  96. Bah... problems will be ignored anyway... by jsteinfo · · Score: 1

    The vote went in favor of republicans. So, why would those in power care to fix it?

  97. Re:honestly people... (not trolling - honest opini by Haxx · · Score: 1

    according to your logic, after a plane crash, we should just forget the whole thing, leave all the carnage at the site forever, no investigation , because after all the plane has crashed, so we should get over it and move on.

  98. Still dangerous by mercedo · · Score: 1

    Electronic balloting is dangerous. Because it can be manipulated easily. Ballot used be a ball in which we can write candidate's name and throw in a box. Back to the most trusting way is the best answer.

    --
    Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
  99. Bull by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

    I dislike Bush more, and have more to lose, than you, I'm pretty sure. (I'm a Libertarian in the military. You figure it out.) But, the point is... that chart is crap. I don't know about any state, but I do know about North Carolina & Ohio, and neither of them used completely e-voting. In fact, Ohio only used about 16% electronic voting. I didn't look up the percentages in NC, but neither my parents nor my best friend used a touch-screen system.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?