Slashdot Mirror
Senators Clinton and Kerry Submit Open Voting Bill
An anonymous reader writes "DailyKos is reporting that a group of senators and representatives including Hillary Clinton, John Kerrry, and Tubbs Jones, have proposed an 'open-source' voting bill. This bill (The Count Every Vote Act of 2005) corrects many of the problems in the last election. Notably, it requires paper receipts, and that the source and object code of all electronic voting machines to be open and readable by the public. " Commentary on the bill available at the Miami Herald.
Bills have already been introduced to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA)[2]. H.R.2239 and its twin Senate counterpart S.1980, discussed further here, will amend the Help America Vote Act such that there is "a voter-verified permanent record or hardcopy" attached with each and every ballot cast by every voter, and that "any voting system containing or using software shall disclose the source code of that software to the Commission, and the Commission shall make that source code available for inspection upon request to any citizen".
Additionally, the three major electronic voting manufacturers already have the ability to add permanent, individual voter-verified paper audit trails to their products. Some e-voting critics make it seem like vendors are resisting. However, it is the local election boards that are resisting (as well as the slow march of bureaucracy). The e-voting vendors will build - and sell - whatever municipalities will buy.
[1] In fairness, this bill does have a couple of minor differences: it proposes that election day be a federal holiday, and makes doing things that liberals would like to make people believe are routine and widespread, like intimidating minorities and passing out fliers with incorrect voting dates, a felony. It also prohibits executives at voting vendors from being politically active, likely to pander to the people who think Diebold's CEO stole the election for Bush, completely ignoring the impossibility of actually executing on such an allegation statewide. In short, a shameless pandering publicity stunt, which ignores the completely legitimate bills already proposed two years ago above by respected members of Congress that would have addressed the two very topics discussed by Kos and noted in the article summary (namely receipts and open source).
[2] Before anyone decries HAVA: a frequent charge levied after the 2000 election was voter disenfranchisement and ballot spoilage due, in large part, to antiquated, malfunctioning, or broken mechanical voting equipment. Legislation was introduced guaranteeing a minimum standard for the equipment and processes associated with voting in all jurisdictions. Since we are living in the 21st century, electronic systems were specified. $3.9 billion was set aside under HAVA to replace all mechanical punch card systems with electronic systems by 1 January, 2006. The goal is to ensure a consistency and fairness in the appearance and operation of the voting systems, both for voters and local election officials.
After the 2000 presidential election, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA):
To establish a program to provide funds to States to replace punch card voting systems, to establish the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the administration of certain Federal election laws and progra
Do you know how complicated voting is, and how many people are involved in it? Do you realize that it's administered by local county officials, and there are literally tens of thousands of people involved, thousands in each state and hundreds in each county? And that these are the people we've always entrusted with our elections process? And that e-voting vendors like Diebold have no central access, or indeed any access after the machines are deployed (except in the form of software updates, which, while not open source, are audited by the FEC and third parties as required by law, the isolated deployment of uncertified patches notwithstanding)?
I mean, do you really believe that comments made by a corporate CEO in the context of fundraising for his state's Republican party actually meant that a 13,000-employee company that prides itself on reliable electronic systems was going to literally subvert democracy and assist in rigging an election for a candidate? And if so, do you believe he'd say that publicly?
yeah, bush has done 40 things worse. excessive spending, a federal takeover of education and airport security, a massive medicare bill, trade tariffs, spending more than clinton ever did. yeah, i got alot of issues domestically. how again is he a "conservative"?
however, he has been right on the war on terror. not just afghanistan and iraq, but look at lebanon, egypt, palestinian terrirtories, ukraine, etc. i only supported him on the war, because he is doing a great job. we are winning. maybe all those anti-war people maybe should rethink a few things...
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
When has a communist ever been democratically elected in a REAL election, where there's more than one party? (IE one the UN monitored and approved of) By that logic you could say Saddam was elected. He was, but there was a slight caveat - there was nobody else on the ballot. Same for the Soviets in the 20th Century.
Seriously, name a communist that was elected in a real election.
They will never stop until somebody makes the
I didn't say he didn't say it. Where did I say that? And I don't need links to a liberal blogs with liberal agendas that "prove" your point, as if I haven't seen them before. I know you think the election was stolen. I just don't know any other way to tell you it wasn't. There has been fraud, errors, and all manner of bullshit in every single election we've had. Would it make any difference to you if I pointed you to articles from professors and non-partisan voting experts who said that all of the exit polls were within margins of error and that there was no widespread fraud of any consequence in this last election? Probably not.
I do not see why you should remove the rights of the people to sell their vote. Seems like you like restricting what people are allowed to do and also would like to remove even more rights and liberties of the people. Commie???
When has a communist ever been democratically elected in a REAL election, where there's more than one party? (IE one the UN monitored and approved of)
When has an American president ever been democratically elected in a REAL election (IE one the UN monitored and approved of)
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Seems to me that this says that Congress shall not force people to worship in any certain way(s), nor shall it not prevent people from free exercise of religion. Also, the Congress shall not abridge freedom of speech or freedom of press. Nor shall it enact law depriving people to peaceably assemble (congregate, protest or whatever the cause). It shall neither enact law preventing people from petitioning their Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Unequivocal. You have the right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed upon.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Constitution describes rights granted to described parties. These rights are absolute and may not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Unless the Federal Government is permitted to do something by the Constitution, the right to such action is delegated to the several States or the people. The States may not usurp such rights to regulate matters which the Constitution has prohibited them to regulate, such as being forbidden to infringe upon the people's right to keep and bear arms...
The Constitution commands that it be enterpreted tersely, in the 9th and 10th Amendments. Now tell me where it says that unwritten matters of the Constitution may be derived by the whim of activist judges? I speak of such things as abortion, which according to said Amendments is a right for States to legislate against;
http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/roe.html
"Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of the majority opinion, stated that the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy but, "in varying contexts the Court or individual justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right." The right to an abortion was then considered an extension of this privacy right. As Blackmun stated,"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision made it unconstitutional for any state to restrict abortion in most circumstances."
Unbelievable.
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
You liberals already took away our free speech rights with your campaign finance reform, how much more do you want? Sheesh...
Ok, fuck-knob. I hereby give you permision to flee the states. Is that what you're looking for, bitch? OK, I guess not. Call 'em up, give 'em whatfor, let 'em know why and tell your neighbors. Fuck, even a Texan could understand that.
I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
Ahem,
With the bill of rights, those actions which are protected are specifically laid out. IIRC from my constitutional history, the bill of rights was laid out right with specific protections as to preclude the situation that you describe, that being 'you have them unless they are prohibited', that is to say to keep them from being prohibited later on. The feeling was that those rights, as not being spelled out were not in fact protected. Please brush up on your history.
As for me being crazy, dont be a jackass, you dont want to read something, fix your fliters, and above all dont actually *reply*.
are you a damned idiot?
It IS unequivocal. What about 'shall not be infringed' do you fail to understand?
m
w .guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
The codifying of the Militia in the Militia Act of 1792, assuming that this is what you speak of, says that the Militia may be called upon in the defense of the land against any foreign aggressor and that the President shall have such power.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.ht
From Merriam-Webster;
infringe "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights"
How is infringing (you can only have a deer rifle if you're a member of an organized State militia (National Guard)) on the people's right to keep and bear arm compatible with 'shall not be infringed'? It is not possible to have limits on the right to keep and bear arms while protecting against such limits.
If you do not like guns, something which I've been unable to gauge, but I will assume - the correct thing would be to argue the repeal of Amendment II. Not inventing some meaning that isn't there. Same actually goes for all of the Constitution, but let's start with Amendment II since we have it on subject.
The DoJ did a study on the matter and came up with the following;
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
Read on further here;
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
http://ww
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
And your evidence is?
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
You just dedicated a hundred words to arguing with me over semantics, and I'm the one playing word games?
I call a canned cola beverage a "pop" and an oblong sandwich a "hoagie." Want to bitch at me about those too?