Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EFF Sues NC Election Board

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the rocking-the-vote dept.

Kludge writes "The EFF is suing the NC elections board. The board certified several voting machine manufacturers although none of the manufacturers would comply with the state law (passed unanimously) that the machine code be kept in escrow."

12 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. I'd like to see this taken farther by dada21 · · Score: 4, Interesting



    The EFF is worried about e-voting based on the likely possibility of vote manipulations. Those in power of the election boards have an incredible amount of power in abusing the democratic process.

    I'm no fan of democracy as all I see in democracy is the ability to manipulate the vote to further the interests of the elite. Democracy is merely a shroud fooling the voting citizens into thinking they don't live in an authoritarian and favoritist regime.

    Votes are manipulated in more ways than just electronically:

    1. The FEC sets federal campaign finance guidelines. Any restriction in how you spend your money is unconstitutionally limiting your freedom of expression. The primary goal of campaign finance reform is to give the authoritarian political parties great power over non-authoritarian parties. What democracy needs is Real Campaign Finance Reform (group is gone) that gives everyone back their ability to express their beliefs politically. Even if you want to give money to a third party, they can't do much with it and you can't give as much as you want.

    2. The FEC gives voters the idea that money corrupts government. Government corrupts due to unlimited power to control, not because of voter donations. If our federal government ran beneath their constitutional boundaries, no amount of bribery or donations would make one difference. Russian could give every Congressman a billion dollars a piece, but the Constitutional would not allow any Congressman to give Russia (or any group or individual) preferential treatment.

    3. The school system is unbalanced in teach the Constitution, leaving the majority of the population unsure of the real power of the Constitution -- leaving people free to use the rights they are born with, and preventing any government from walking over those rights.

    4. Voters are given completely biased ballots. Proper ballots should force the voter to know who they are voting for and write in the candidate. Offering ballots showing the current office holder or party affiliation provides more power to the two authoritarian parties.

    5. Voters are only allowed to see commercials from major parties as they are offered (illegal) campaign matching funds in addition to virtually unlimited campaign budgets. Third parties can not raise the necessary funds as they are limited by finance reform guidelnies.

    6. Voters never get to see every candidate in the debates as the debate committees are run by authoritarian parties unwilling to give up their powers.

    7. Voters are confused by the colluding media that wants them to vote in order to give the authoritarian candidates the mandates needed to expand the power of government. Voters rarely hear that voting is wrong and that the process setting up the vote is a collusion between the authoritarian parties.

    I hope that the EFF can see how short they come when they prosecute only the voting machines, rather than the voting system.

    Do what I do. Don't vote for any candidate -- write yourself in for every position.

    1. Re:I'd like to see this taken farther by kindbud · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Any restriction in how you spend your money is unconstitutionally limiting your freedom of expression.

      Says you. Got a court case to cite in support of your position? Didn't think so. It's just your opinion versus 200+ years of jurisprudence. First of all, money is not speech. Second of all:

      What democracy needs...

      You said democracy was a sham to provide cover for authoritatarian and favoritist regimes. Who is favored? The people with money. So you want to "reform democracy" by entirely removing the meager limitations on how the wealthy can influence the political process, thus ensuring that their influence will become even more intractibly entrenched.

      Brilliant!

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    2. Re:I'd like to see this taken farther by dada21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't you dare try and put that on teachers.

      I have no respect for any teacher that is a member of any teacher union. I have at least 4 friends who are teachers who quit the unions and still teach, and I have the utmost respect for them. If you are a teacher and a member of the socialist union, you're trash, plain and simple. Read what the teacher unions do every year and you'll agree.

      Have you talked to the crazy parents teachers have to put up with? Most will actually tell you they expect the school to teach their kids dicipline.

      I agree. This is also the teacher unions fault. They have fought, tooth and nail, the ability to bring independent graders into the system. Let teachers teach, let grades grade. A teacher grading their own students is similar to an employee setting their own salary!

      And every kid is a geneous, and most parents do about 20% of their kids work, especially essays. And teachers do a LOT of work for the crap pay they get, more than you know.

      Crap pay? This is a myth. Teachers are some of the best paid for the actual time they spend and the quality of their output.

      They also usually have very specific lesson requirements handed down from the state level, so any real teaching or discussion gets put to the side.

      Thanks, I also agree that the State is to blame. The Federal mandates on education are a big problem as well.

      The problem is lazy parents who don't have time to deal with their kids because their (1) divorced or (2) both working.

      When we were in the 1960s, a family of 4 paid about 20% of their income to government at every level. 1 parent could afford to stay home. In 2005, a family of 4 pays over 50% of their income to government at every level. This is 250% higher, causing both parents to have to work just to get by. Don't blame the parents for what you voted for.

    3. Re:I'd like to see this taken farther by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Who would issue currency?

      Actually, in Hong Kong most currency is issued by three private banks, each with their own design. The govt issues coins and one low-denomination bill. The banks do have to be licenced, and have sufficient assets to cover their cash.

    4. Re:I'd like to see this taken farther by turbidostato · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "What would a free-market government look like?"

      Quite like true democratics.

      "Who would issue currency?"

      Popular acceptance (just like money currency).

      "How could you enforce rapidly-changing laws?"

      You won't. That's your elected official problem. If you see rapidly-changing laws to be a problem or otherwise you don't credit the candidate to be able to cope with an environment where laws change too fast, just vote another candidate that promise you to be not so change-friendly. On the other hand, when you find a law to be detrimental you would want it changed ASAP; and you wouldn't vote a candidate that offers to change a law you find well suited, would you?

      "How could you do all the wonderfully unprofitable things that governments do, like funding education?"

      Just the same way it is done *now*. Only people would have more voice regarding how and when those things should have to be done. It is arguably, even, that due to the fact people would be more commonly exposed to take hard decitions, they would be taken in a more matured way than currently.

      "since it'll be a race down to the bottom to try to provide the most cheap, bare-bones system posible."

      Why? You can only believe that if you believe that people is unable to take the "hard" path. But if you believe that, then what you *really* believe is that people is unable to govern themselves. In other words: you don't want a more direct democracy because you don't believe democracy to be good.

      "I just don't see how you can compare free-market capitalism and democracy as political systems."

      Politicians offer "products" by marketing, and they try to make offers more attractive than the other competitors to their target audience. Then the consumers "buy" those politicians "products" by voting them.

      What the other proponent says doesn't seem to bad. There're laws avoiding regular "bundle selling" (you should be able to buy the differenciated products that forms the bundle), but politician products are "bundle sold": when you vote for a candidate, you vote for her programme as whole (or you could consider the politician to be the product by himself, not what he is going to do once elected). There's no way to say "yes I support your idea about This, but I don't want you to do That". It would be good looking for a really functional way to avoid "political bundle selling".

      "Oh, and you can fix past errors in judgment. Laws can be repealed"

      Quite true. But it much more difficult to repeal a law than it is to pass it.

    5. Re:I'd like to see this taken farther by stinerman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I notice you keep coming back to the fact that if congress had no real power, bribes would be useless, which is true. What you don't take into account is that the people are the last true defense of the Constitution. If the government up and decided tomorrow that there is no guarantee to free speech in the Constitution, there is no one who can stop them, save the people.

      The founders thought that seperation of powers would keep the government in check, but they did this without knowing the power of party politics. As we've seen time and time again under the current administration, the legislature is largely a rubber stamp for the president's agenda if it is controlled by the same party.

      You often comment on how the people are to blame for the current state of affairs because they keep electing politicians who continuously defy the constitution. From that it reasons that the people want representatives who are going to do just that. Has it ever occured to you that a majority of the people want a government with near unlimited power? Many liberals want the government fix all of society's economic problems. Many conservatives want the government to fix all of society's social problems. You make the mistake of thinking that the average voter cares about the Constitution. All the average voter cares about are the hot button issues of the day, be they gay marriage, illegal immigration, etc. No one says "I believe in what Candidate X wants to do, but alas, the Constitution forbids the federal government from doing that. I cannot vote for him/her for that reason."

      My point is that the if the people will not defend the Constitution, you can't expect politicians from doing the same (Ron Paul excepted). Unless everyone starts electing some hardcore deontologists who are willing to admit that the federal government doesn't have the power to do X even if X is a widely agreed upon thing to do, there is no chance to reclaim such a limited government.

  2. Re:How Is This Possible? by quanticle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, but its not often that a state commission violates its own mandate so brazenly.

    --
    We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
  3. Re:open e-voter by Sr.+Pato · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why don't you? If you've got a "good" idea, why not make some profit? :-)

    --
    Nobody's gay for Mole-Man. :-(
  4. Not to worry by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are no problems with electronic voting machince, except maybe for this minor glitch.

  5. I wonder by symbolic · · Score: 2, Interesting


    I wonder what it would cost to put together an open-source consortium to design the thing from the ground up. These things aren't exactly rocket science, and I bet that most of it could be done with off-the-shelf components. As for the software - I don't see that as a terrifically complicated piece, and I'm willing to bet that a few good coders could put the likes of Diebold to shame.

    1. Re:I wonder by legirons · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "I wonder what it would cost to put together an open-source consortium to design the thing from the ground up."

      It would take open-sourcing all the potential political scandals ("hidden requirements") that are currently just deals between friends, and making them into visible requirements for the software.

      It might also involve setting up an open-source bureaucracy that's rigid enough to do all the certifications (i.e. no more extreme programming, hacking or whatever, but the 2 lines of code per day that you get when audits are involved)

  6. Votergate the movie by TheDarkener · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Everyone concerned about the future of our electoral system, Diebold, and electronic voting machines in general NEEDS to watch this movie (available for download from the site): Votergate.tv

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.