Slashdot Mirror
Maryland Fights to Keep E-voting
crystalattice writes "Apparently Maryland election officials never have computer problems. That's why they're fighting so hard to keep their Diebold e-voting machines. Washington Post reporter Marc Fisher received nothing but bad attitudes, dodges, and excuses when he attempted to discuss the issue with the state elections administration and Diebold." From the article: "I asked the state's elections administrator, Linda Lamone, whether Maryland wasn't just a bit too quick to adopt electronic voting. Doesn't the computer at your desk ever freeze up on you? 'No,' she replied. Never? 'No.' But surely people in your office have had that experience? 'No.' (Maybe we've found the solution to Maryland's voting problem: Everybody head on down to Linda Lamone's office, where the machines work 100 percent of the time.)"
Or maybe the people making these calls are the kind of people who form conclusions and then look for evidence.
Oh, e-Voting! It uses computers, so it must be better!
When beliefs held this way are challenged, the response is hostility, not a rational defence of said beliefs.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/
But "open source" voting systems are just as useless as proprietary ones without a permanent voter-verifiable paper audit trail.
In fact, given the choice of 1.) open source voting systems, and 2.) a permanent voter-verifiable paper audit trail, you'd be foolish not to pick 2.) every time.
Now if we could have both, fantastic. However, you'll probably go a LOT further arguing for a paper trail in ALL instances than trying to unseat traditional enterprise and commercial vendors in any market.
So in other words, electronic voting and Diebold are always evil, except when Democrats support it?
I get it now.
Also, I call total bullshit on this. These machines are either bad, or not. You can't have it both ways. I'm surprised at how many are now coming up with justifications to still vilify only the Republicans in this process, regardless of whether they want - or want to get rid of - e-voting.
(By the way, I'm not a Republican, didn't vote for Bush, etc.)
Do you think these officials are outrigh lying and conspiring to subvert the democractic process for a few meager bucks. Most of the subversives in charge of the Maryland voting system recieve no monies, but instead the kudos and respect from their superiors. In time, they may also get a slice of the power for their efforts, and will then be free to stamp on a few faces.
Did the communist revolutionaries get paid? No, they did what they did because they belived what they were doing was right. Just as absolutist Republician party members believe what they are doing by rigging elections is also right, because it helps the "godly and patriotic" stay in power. These people don't believe in democracy or freedom or rights. They believe whatever they want to and have only contempt for those who disagree.
So don't follow the money trail. It won't be that simple, because these people are working on different rules. Their kickbacks will only come after it's too late to expose them.
May the Maths Be with you!
For the record, as of 2:30P CT, this is the only +5 moderated post in this story.
Why is it unsurprising that in a group that traditionally lambasts e-voting as essentially a Republican conspiracy to steal elections at every turn would take every opportunity to moderate up the first post justifying *not* getting rid of e-voting when the Republican governor actually wants to go back to all paper ballots?
If this were a Democratic governor wanting to get rid of e-voting and Republicans fighting it, ask yourself: would a post like the parent really be modded up? Think about that and give yourself an honest answer.
No, I do get it.
If the tables were turned here (e.g., Democratic governor fighting to remote e-voting and Republicans fighting to keep it), would you still be justifying keeping Diebold e-voting in Maryland in the same way you just did?
You're quick to defend non-Republicans, because, like many, you want to believe that Republicans' only motivation is illegitimately securing power at all costs and with any dirty tricks possible, and coming up with all kinds of justifications that support that view (like trying to keep working class communities away from the polls, creating fear about the process (which helps only the Republican governor how?), etc.) Well, I have news for you: the Democrats have done, and do, the same things.
(And again, lest the normal commenters who respond to my posts forget, I am not a Republican and voted at least 2:1 Democratic to anything else in the last two elections.)
I don't think he was slandering the party. He was calling out the extremist wing of the party that unfortunately has hijacked the party. No one is suggesting that all Republicans are corrupt, election-rigging holy rollers, but the ones that are doing this crap are.
Also, we aren't talking about corruption in any other party because the Republican party is the one in power here, and they're the ones pulling this shit. Are there corrupt Democrats? Of course. Have some Democrats done nasty things to subvert free and fair elections? Yes. That doesn't mean we have to be "fair and balanced" and bring up what the Democrats did 30 years ago every time we talk about what the Republicans are doing now. What the Democrats do or did has no bearing at all on the fact that what the Republicans are doing now is wrong.
Yes, corruption is rife in government. That does not mean we have to acknowledge every corrupt act by every government official in every party to discuss it. We identify corrupt practices and complain about them individually. Painting the whole government as necessarily corrupt just gives everyone the idea that corruption is just fine because "everyone is doing it." The fact of the matter is that the Republicans are in power, and their corruption is hurting the country more than anyone else's because of that fact.
To say the obvious: If there is fraud with computer voting, no-one will know, that is the whole point. Therefore there won't be any 'computer problems'.
I hate DMCA as much as the next Slashdotter, and the Democrats who've been supporting the telcos and fighting Net Neutrality deserve to be thrown out too.
But let's not pretend there's "enough blame to go around". There has never been a congress as corrupt as the Republicans who've been in control since 1994 and there's never been an administration as foul as the Bush Junta. We heard this kind of bullshit after Jack Abramoff was found to have purchased the votes of scores of Republican congressmen and senators. "Well, the Democrats took $500 from Jack Abramoff, so that shows they're just as corrupt as Bob Ney who took over a million dollars and actually SOLD HIS EFFING VOTE to the highest bidder." It's a red herring and complete crap. Even if the Democrats did take money they haven't had anything to sell to the generous donors like Abramoff who have purchased the Republican Party and Bush Presidency.
Let's not forget that since 2000 the Democratic Party has exactly ZERO power in Washington. They've been completely shut out of the legislative process by rules changes and the "K Street Project." 3 million-plus Americans have gone from "getting by" to outright poverty since Bush and Co. took over. 40 million Americans-plus don't have health insurance of any kind since Bush and Co. took over. And the war, tax cuts only for people who make more than $250k, this shiny new security apparatus and the "rebuilding" of Afghanistan and Iraq are all being put on the USA Credit Card so my kids and grandkids can pay it off while eating macaroni and cheese. How do you think they're paying for those secret prisons, wiretaps, and data mining? You think black hoods and stun guns are free?
If there is anything in government that you don't like since 2000, you can bet that no Democrat has had anything to do with it. Not that they're such fantastic leaders, but there is nothing about the last 6 years you can pin on them. Nothing. And I know Republicans hate to hear this, but the guy who was supposed to be protecting the American Homeland on September 11, 2001 was George W. Bush. No other. NOT Bill Clinton. Say it again until it sinks in. It was a Republican President who told the National Security Advisor a year before 9/11 after being told Osama bin Laden should be a top priority "OK, you've covered your butt." It was the BUSH ADMINISTRATION that said our soldiers would be greeted with flowers and candy when they marched into Baghdad (this is absolutely true. spend a few minutes with Google to see for yourself) and it was a Republican Vice President (the guy with the evil, baby's-blood-drinking sneer) who said"The war in Iraq will be over in weeks rather than years.
I could go on (and I probably will, soon), but the next person who tells me "oh, there's plenty of blame to be spread around the two parties) is going to get my size 11 Hush Puppy right up his crack. Now, "alizard" if that is your real name, why don't you go dunk your head? That BS isn't going to play around here any more.
You are welcome on my lawn.