Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Buggy Voting Machines

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the spelling-it-out-for-the-people dept.

dkleinsc writes "The NYTimes is running an article arguing in layman's terms that voting machines are inherently buggier (Sperm sample required. Sorry ladies) than most software systems because they are not tested properly. A fun quote: "Extensive discussions are under way at sites like VerifiedVoting.org, CalVoter.org, and the "news for nerds" forum Slashdot.org about inexpensive, practical ways to make automated voting as reliable as, say, buying books online. Their recommendations make sense."" We makese sense? Wah?

1 of 471 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Wow, no political bias in here by WNight · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Did Clinton invade Iraq? No. So it's not hypocritical for him to have tried to keep from getting sent to war. Bush on the other hand wants to avoid the war himself while sending others into harms way.

    And this volunteer army you go on about... Did they volunteer to serve and protect their country, or to go fight a war based on lies? Maybe it was short sighted of them, but they didn't sign up for a pointless war to back Dubya's revenge.

    Those hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths mean something to me, as did the offensive policies of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Bush didn't lift a finger to help any of them - they only became his justification after he didn't catch Osama and didn't find the WMDs he lied about.

    Note that I'm not saying this to support any other president or candidate - Bush is just worst.