Slashdot Mirror
Diebold to Withdraw from E-Voting?
ICA writes "It appears after years of criticism, Diebold may be ready to withdraw from electronic voting entirely. The company is concerned that this relatively small and marginally profitable unit is hurting the company's overall image."
de mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Whenever I called for technical support they would always say, "You know your vote doesn't count anyway."
The above comment was intended for amusement purposes only and in no way reflects true events.
Instead of just letting a company have their way with electronic voting, they really should have done research into the best voting method. I think on Slashdot we've reached a general consensus that there should at least be a verifyable paper trail that each voter can see their votes cast on paper. This would help in case of machine failure, or in case of voter fraud committed by the programmer. I'm no expert on electronic voting, but it doesn't take an expert to see there are flaws with the current electronic voting.
God spoke to me.
Unfortunately for Diebold, I'm not of the opinion that if they can't properly make a secure voting machine, what is to say that they can make a secure ATM? Sure, they may be two completely different divisions within the same company but considering how much the top management has avoided doing the right thing to fix their voting machines, I doubt the ATM division would be much different.
Diebold was a respected maker of bank vault, ATM, security (!) and deposit equipment before they started messing with the E-voting market.
As my dad said, don't stake your reputation on something if you can't seem to get the hang of it; he was talking about sports, but it applies here as well. Diebold can't do this well; they should stop doing it and concentrate on their core business.
That, and Diebold has already accomplished what it's CEO promised to do - deliver the Presidency to the Republicans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_mortuis_nil_nisi_b onum
~ roscivs
Run Diebold Run! Dissolve the division and destroy the paper-trail before the Dems figure out what the real story was for the past couple elections!
"The company is concerned that this relatively small and marginally profitable unit is hurting the company's overall image."
That's absurd. Diebold's voting machines have destroyed the company's image completely, in my opinion. Seriously, if you know something about the history and you have a little technical knowledge, would you ever buy anything from Diebold?
DEADbold.
--
My summary of U.S. gov corruption. Where's your's?
If it is true that Diebold is looking to dump this business unit (which hasn't been confirmed or denied - Diebold has only said that an announcement would come sometime), what then happens to all the machines (100,000+, i think)? Surely they, or whoever purchases the business unit, is still on the hook for support, updates, and whatever flak comes when the things don't work right. Those machines aren't going to simply vanish or instantly become secure and reliable. Some improvements can be made by completely changing the firmware, but a great deal of the criticism behind the voting machines was their lack of physical security and lack of a physical paper trail. Those are problems that can't be fixed without drastically altering the hardware itself. What company out there would want to buy this business unit and take that challenge on?
I think they're taking the Democratic lead and will just appeal to the dead vote. You know, an FDR-esque "brains in every pot!"
On topic, they're probably right to do this. In my home state of Pennsylvania it is literally illegal for the touch-screen machine to produce a paper receipt so a black-box solution like what Diebold provides will always be open to criticism and question. They could provide a 100% fraud-free election and the loser will still complain. In my humble opinion the best solution is a touch-screen front end with a paper ballot printout that is then available for vote count verification. Run the count electronically, sure, but randomly verify counts of a few precincts and if anything is off you know you have to audit the whole thing. If somebody challenges the results you have a paper trail that was REVIEWED by the voter themselves before being placed in the ballot box.
....so by proving they -can't- fix their problems, they'll somehow convince the world that their -other- business (ATMs) are somehow reliable and secure?
Sure lack of profitability != bad product always, but I'm not sure how dumping their problem child is going to fix the problem now.
This is more about brand image than anything else- they're afraid people will start noticing the Diebold name on the ATM machines and stop using those banks, because Diebold has not been able to be trusted with voting.
After all, what's more important, voting or money?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Another option for Diebold might be to fix the problems: print a paper confirmation, make motherboard access a little harder than a luggage lock. We don't ask for much.
Hey, Diebold did their job and delivered Ohio.
Mission Accomplished.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
According to quoted experts, Diebold might dump its poorly-rated electronic voting division. Or it might not.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Ah, it's going so, so well, and then: That, and Diebold has already accomplished what it's CEO promised to do - deliver the Presidency to the Republicans. Funny - I would have expected that sort of talk to end after the latest congressional elections. Or is this one of those "only bring it up when we don't like the result" kind of things.
Lucky for us they did get into e-voting, and it has hurt their reputation. If they didn't, we wouldn't have been as aware that if security was their ass, they wouldn't be able to find it with both hands tied behind their back! Their reputation needed to be brought down.
"The company is concerned that this relatively small and marginally profitable unit is hurting the company's overall image" Another great company down the tubes, what's next Enron is fudging the books? You critics are killing us all!
Is it possible to tarnish this company's image any further?
51% against. 53% for George Bush. Case closed.
But, but, but, I though money = votes.
Was that a trick question?
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
Unfortunately, it's rather difficult to choose what brand ATM you use. However, it's certainly possible to complain to your bank or credit union about their choice of Diebold ATMs, and it's also certainly possible that the people at banks/CUs who decide which ATM vendor to purchase from may decide against Diebold based on all the negative publicity.
Maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist, I don't know, maybe I've been in the computer business too long.
Diebold should have been able to make an e-voting system. NO bank would accept the "really, really, it works" hand waving from Diebold with regards to the e-voting. All ATM machines, teller machines, and machines that handle monetary transactions somewhere along the line, produce at least one verifiable paper record of credit and debit for each party in the transaction and agents involved. To do less with voting seems completely absurd. For Diebold to even suggest a system without proper accountability makes absolutely no sense what so ever. They really do understand security and record keeping, what the hell happened with e-voting? As a corporation, e-voting should have been a slam dunk for them.
Ineptitude at such a large corporation is not unheard of, but surely someone would have said something, right? When the president of Diebold said he would do what ever he could to make sure G.W. Bush gets re-elected, it was an event that colored my "benefit of the doubt" stance on Diebold.
I honestly believe that G.W. Bush and company helped fix the election and Diebold was just one of the methods. It only takes slight tampering to sway a consensus or another. When the polling authority in ohio opened ballot boxes to "pre-screen" the supposedly "random" selection in order to avoid a full recount, one has to wonder. In 2000 it was Florida, in 2004 it was Ohio, regardless the outcome is the same.
I think in the U.S.A. we have to ensure our own democracy before we try to bring democracy elsewhere by force.
Just my $0.02
P.S. This is not a flame post, just the words of a sad and disillusioned patriotic American.
You know that the technologies, hardware and software behind Diebold's systems were not inexpensive. So it's highly unlikely that they will just drop out of this. What will happen instead is that their work will be sold to the highest bidder. And that company will become the new Diebold with the main difference being that this new company will likely have e-voting as their main focus. Expect to hear about a new "better" voting machine before the next presidential elections. If they play their cards right, they'll spin it to make it seem like they are totally new and have better reliability than Diebold did. Then the same old games will be played and we'll have another presidential election tarnished by uncertainty about the results. They play this game enough times and this will seem "normal". Those voters who are happy with the results will not question the results. Those who are unhappy will also stop questioning as the other side will beat them into submission by saying, "sour grapes" enough times. And all will be well for those with the money to buy votes.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
literally illegal
As opposed to "figuratively illegal"?
These will always be low bidder projects with thin margins and lousy propects. Look how well the mechanical voting machine company did.
Seriously, you can't make money on something which is (a) an expense which cannot garner any revenue and (b) which is used extremely infrequently.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You can't "elect" W more than twice, so their work here is done.
Bank: End-user receipts are allowed and in fact welcomed. When you make a transaction it spits out a little piece of paper that shows your balance and/or banking history
Voting Machine: End user is not to receive a paper receipt, mainly on the basis that doing so could further vote-buying/pressuring/forcing/etc (i.e. a given group threatening dire consequences if voted Y doesn't come out with a slip saying he/she voted for "X")
You'd have to be crazy to want to get into that business. Any piece of hardware that a third party has access to can be modified as long as someone is willing to put in enough effort. There's enough zealots on both sides of an election that you can guarantee someone would figure it out no matter what you do to the hardware.
There will never be truly "secure" electronic voting without a complete rework of every aspect of the process and even then it probably would never be truly secure.
Dumbold Voting Machine for The Sims
The Dumbold Voting Machine for The Sims enables the simulated people in your virtual dollhouse to vote!
It's an interactive "get out the vote" public service message, in the form of a free downloadable Sims object.
This Sims object is an electronic voting machine that lets your Sims vote between four candidates: Kerry, Bush, Nader and Badnarik.
I've included informative text in this Sims object, which it displays in illustrated dialogs to educate players about electronic voting machines.
A major side-show is the "Monkey" item on the pie menu, which activates all kinds of cool easter eggs, and displays lots of in-game information and news about electronic voting machines.
Please give this Dumbold Voting Machine a good pounding on, and tell me if you have any problems (besides the usual problems endemic to electronic voting machines, which I've programmed into this Sims object on purpose).
At first look, it appears to be a fully functional voting machine. But it actually has a lot of fatal bugs and hidden features, just like real electronic voting machines!
Highlights of Cheats, Bugs and Easter Eggs (Illustrations are here)
The Dumbold Voting Machine is programmed with cheats, bugs and easter eggs, which you can discover and read about by playing around with it. It demonstrates and simulates some alarming problems with real world electronic voting machines, with many surprising effects and subtle interactions:
Baxter the Chimpanzee Erases the Voting Log. When you put the voting machine into debug mode and clear the votes, you will see a dialog with the hillarious picture and story of Baxter the Chimpanzee. In your web browser, you can watch the funny monkey movie showing Baxter erasing the voting log! Now your Sims can monkey around with the electronic Dumbold Voting Machines, go bananas hacking the system, fling poo and corrupt the election results just like the pros!
Vote or Die! P. Diddy, lately a.k.a. Citizen Combs, says: "'You all are the X-factor, the wild card," Combs said. "`History is being made here. Our revolution has begun." "Young voters in this country are throwing away their power to have a say about education, healthcare, and any issue that affects them." Combs explains. "These things affect your life, so - Vote or Die!" (If you select Vote, you live. If you select Die, you either get electrocuted, or burst into flames, then you die.)
You punched out the screen! Hey!!! You're supposed to touch the screen, not punch it! Next time, please don't take out your frustration with the lousy choice of candidates by punching the screen. That's not the way to get your vote counted. (Your Sim breaks the voting machine screen. You can repair it if you're skilled enough, but you might want to keep a handyman on call during the election!)
Osama Bin Laden Scares the Piss Out of You!!! Osama Bin Laden wants to scare you into voting for George W Bush, because Bin Laden is grateful to Bush for outsourcing the job of hunting him down to Osama's good friends, the Afghan warlords. Bush's policies have strengthened Bin Laden's cause, and George W Bush says he's not worried about Osama Bin Laden. Bush and Bin Laden both want you to vote in response to your of fears, not in pursuit of your hopes. "Americans all know that Osama Bin Laden doesn't pick our president. The Supreme Court does." -Bill Maher (Your Sim empties their bladder, pisses their pants, and then runs away screaming!)
Accidentally Voting for Pat Buchanan. When you select one of the four official candidates, sometimes it "accidentally" pops up an illustrated dialog asking for confirmation that you want to vote for Pat Buchanan! If you foolishly select "Yes", the voting machine breaks!
News about Black Box Voting.
News about CalTech-MIT/Voting Technology Project.
News about Diebold
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
What we really need to do electronic voting is secure tallying. We need a public, verifiable way of checking that the tallies are legitimate. We also need to make sure that they are also anonymous.
Any proposed method of verifying your electronic vote, whether it's a paper receipt, a bar code, or a website that you can check later on, is susceptible to being left out of the tally. So what if the website reports that it has correctly recorded your vote? You have no way of knowing whether your verified vote is counted in the official tally. Even if you see a vote exactly like yours in the official tally, it may or may not belong to you. With anonymous voting, several people might be looking at a single ballot, all thinking it was the one that they cast.
I'm trying to imagine a system where we can all have verified votes and make sure that they are affecting the official tally, but still maintain anonymity in the vote. Voting is basically a system where each voter can affect the outcome of the election by exactly one vote, for each office and issue. Perhaps a system where each voter adds encrypted strings of their vote to the official tally. Each voter can decrypt the official tally string and see that their vote has affect the tally. At the end of the election the last voter turns their decryption string to the officials, and the tallies are decrypted.
As you can tell, I'm not a mathematician nor a computer scientist. Please feel free to chime in and criticize or offer new ideas.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Personally, I see no other purpose in the design of Diebold voting systems other than to facilitate fraud. Seriously, there just aren't any really good protections built into the whole device.
Now, that it appears very likely that in 2008, Democrats will control both houses of congress and the presidency,I can understand why the folks at Diebold are worried about things like future investigations of their business. I really can believe it might make business sense for the Diebold management to dump their voting machines business at a loss-and let somebody else hold that hot potatoe. I would also expect some substantial managerial turnover is in order too.
Now, the problem is that Diebold is just the most visible of several corrupt companies here. I wouldn't forget about ES&S--which is another major player in the market-and which has similar problems.
According to Black Box Voting (http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/173 05.html?1138394704) the company that originally designed the Diebold machines was founded by five convicted felons. Four were perpetrators of sophisticated fraud and the fifth was a drug-dealer prison buddy of one of the fraudsters.
The criminal records of these people would make them ineligible to carry bedpans in Maryland nursing homes, but of course there are no criminal record checks for people who design and maintain voting machines.
The criminal backgrounds of Global's original founders gives reason to suspect that the widespread security vulnerabilities of the machines were not due to mere incompetence but might have been connected to some kind of nefarious scheme concocted by their criminal minds.
Accordingly, let me suggest that a proper purchaser for Diebold Election Systems might be some international criminal syndicate, for example the Russian Mafia, the drug cartels, or perhaps some criminal group fronting for terrorists. That would, in a sense, return the machines to people with the backgrounds of the founders of the original developer.
The Russian Mafia could make voting systems a subsidiary of their organization that reportedly is responsible for all the recent spam related to pump-and-dump penny stock schemes. They certainly have sophisticated computer capability behind those schemes. They could auction election victories just like they now reportedly auction cybercrime facilities and exploits.
Just some thoughts.
Us "losers" are complaining because Diebold ISN'T 100% fraud-free, isn't verifiably so, and in fact deliberately designed not to be. blackboxvoting.com
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
[Disclaimer, I live and work down the road from the Diebold corp offices and have family that work there.]
/. crowd, but try getting the facts straight before throttling the company and writing it off as a total incompetent.
t ems
I know it's asking a lot from the
Diebold didn't make the voting machines, it purchased the company that did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold_Election_Sys
For those too lazy to click the link:
"Diebold Election Systems is currently run by Bob Urosevich [1] who has worked in the election systems industry since 1976. In 1979, Mr. Urosevich founded American Information Systems. He served as the President of AIS now known as Election Systems & Software, Inc. (ES&S) from 1979 through 1992. Bob's brother, Todd Urosevich, is Vice President, Aftermarket Sales with ES&S, DES's chief competitor. In 1995, Bob Urosevich started I-Mark Systems, whose product was a touch screen voting system utilizing a smart card and biometric encryption authorization technology. Global Election Systems, Inc. (GES) acquired I-Mark in 1997, and on July 31, 2000 Mr. Urosevich was promoted from Vice President of Sales and Marketing and New Business Development to President and Chief Operating Officer. On January 22, 2002, Diebold announced the acquisition of GES, then a manufacturer and supplier of electronic voting terminals and solutions. The total purchase price, in stock and cash, was $24.7 million. Global Election Systems subsequently changed its name to Diebold Election Systems, Inc."
Diebold is actually well-respected and admired in this area. Diebold election systems are based in Texas whereas the financial systems are here in NE Ohio. I interviewed there for an SE position a couple of years ago, toured their ATM lab, and spent some quality time with some of their software engineers. They seemed to have a very competent operation and I enjoyed the interview. (I ended up taking a different job with another large international corp for other $elfi$h reason$ (I have a family to feed)) I heard the same moaning from the employees I met that I hear from family members who work there - something similar to "those stupid voting machines make us look bad." I have yet to meet an employee, management or otherwise, who has anything good to say about the elections systems division.
Wally O'Dell is largely (if not solely) responsible for the elections systems debacle. It's no secret that he lead the company right into this political mess at the expense of the company's and his own reputations.
Don't torpedo the whole company just because the former CEO bungled a bad deal with a flawed political agenda. It'll eventually work out in the wash, then you can cast aspersions on a new company TBA.
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
That fear is justified, I won't use my bank's ATMs because they're made by Diebold. Given all the horrendous security gaffs Diebold has made over their voting machines (like having a picture of the key that opens them up on their website) I'm not comfortable using my debit card in anything they've designed. How do I know that the ATM was treated with any higher level of security on Diebold's end? Frankly I'm convinced there are just as many security issues with their ATMs, that they just haven't gotten as much bad publicity yet. I'm not likely to trust their equipment in the future either, and if I was ever in a position to be buying their products I'll certainly chose a competitor.
Voting, but I have to deal with money year-round whereas we only have elections once a year at most here. Thankfully we don't have Diebold voting machines, but I'll still be avoiding their ATMs. Any company with their security track record doesn't deserve my trust or business.
With all the negative press surrounding electronic voting, I wonder if this signals a jump back to the standard paper or mechanical voting machines. Any election can be fixed, but I've always felt electronic voting isn't quite ready yet. Given that most people wouldn't understand how an electronic voting machine could produce wrong or fraudulent results, it's probably not the best thing to introduce right now. People understand the idea of improperly marked paper ballots or an election official tampering with the older mechanical tabulators. People don't fully grasp the idea of a group of hackers, whether for fun or profit, gaining access to or changing vote results.
I say we should wait until computer security really is nailed down. Not just because Symantec or other vendors say we're secure, but because it's actually so. Listening to security vendors do presentations at work to the executives is a painful exercise. The common theme is "buy this box, and you're 100% secure from these threats." I think it's going to take a lot of convincing (and a few examples) to change people's thoughts on this.
What I find amusing, is how much success we had using electronic voting machines here at Brazil... we have been using these for almost 10 years now. The last presidential election was almost entirely conducted using these machines... and only a few on the entire country had to be replaced due failure.
Of course there are some issues to be sorted, but overall it was a huge improvement over the old paper-based system.
So, why did Brazil succeed where the USA failed?
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
-GiH
Here's the thing that bothers me about this, though: EVERYONE should be upset when someone says something like that. His statement should be read as, "I will use the Republican party to tear down democracy." Republicans should take that as a slap in the face, and should be MORE outraged than Democrats! This isn't an us-vs-them issue. If ANY party gains control over voting, EVERYONE loses. Don't imagine for a second that such a change would benefit the core values of the Republicans. As soon as entrenched politicians have no one to answer to, and no means of removal, they will serve their own needs (desires) alone. This has been demonstrated by members of every political organization (regardless of their views) that has ever been given the opportunity to go bad.
This is not a partisan issue. This is one man making statements that are darned close to treasonous and certainly a smear on the reputation of any party that accepts his support thereafter.
> In my home state of Pennsylvania it is literally illegal for the touch-screen machine to produce a paper receipt
/designed/ so that you can look at the receipt but leave the polling place with no more than you came in with plus an "I voted" sticker.
And for good reason: the only thing worse than not having a receipt is having one you can take with you. The machine needs to be
I prefer the optech systems where you just mark up a very unambiguous physical ballot and place it in a reader. Like anything else, those can be gamed too, but at least the ballots are there as a final authority.
My guess is that Diebold's exit will simply hand the company off to a buyer who will continue to run it in the same unaccountable way, but during the interim uncertainty, Sequoia, ES&S, and Optech will make sales. Also, keep in mind that ES&S has had more than its fair share of scandals as well.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
"District #142!"
"Bingo!"
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
There's an even older one that only worked on those old Diebold's that had the one-piece garage door-like opening for the cash to come out. If you held open the door and left the cash there (it was apparently hard to keep open), the ATM would reset, and the last transaction would be dropped from its audit trail - meaning you could take that cash out, let the door drop, and redo-from-start. This was later fixed (though I wouldn't doubt there's a bank or two who refused to update).
Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur ...
morcego
The reason you really hadn't heard about them prior to this whole electronic voting mess is because their security and ATM products are quite good. Diebold was completely off everyone's radar because they had such a good reputation in the industry. A company does not get to be around 150 years by selling a lot of garbage.
The voting fiasco happened because of a bad business decision. With the entire nation in an uproar over the botched 2000 elections, Diebold saw an opportunity to capitalize on everyone's concerns. They are a company in business to make money, remember. So, they bought up another company that already had electronic voting machines and Diebold had an instant product line. Sure that product line had a lot of flaws, but I'm sure Diebold saw those as minor compare to those big piles of government cash being thrown at the voting problem to make it go away.
Now, Diebold is realizing the seriousness of those flaws and realizes that the company might have to start from scratch to redesign everything to Diebold standards. That's going to cost them a LOT of money. Remember that thing about being in business to make money? In addition, by making this problem go away they can get back to their core businesses which are what they are really good at.
SiO2
You seem to have not paid attention. There were wide, and well substantiated claims of Diebold problems in that election, many of which are open to interpretation as to whether or not they were fraudulent, and if so if they were politically motivated (as opposed to just covering for incompetence). The problem was that the elections were so overwhelmingly in favor of the Democrats that these irregularities had little impact.
Here's the thing that bothers me about this, though: EVERYONE should be upset when someone says something like that. His statement should be read as, "I will use the Republican party to tear down democracy." Republicans should take that as a slap in the face, and should be MORE outraged than Democrats!
Pot/Kettle
As an ofttimes Republican voter I was:
* Upset when a thorough study of the 2000 Florida results (by mostly liberal mainstream media) concluded that Bush had indeed won the state, but long after that history has been re-written to only focus on headlines from 24 hours after the election.
* Upset that a paper ballot system, with known, but fixable flaws, was thrown out not only in Florida but in other voting districts all over the country, even in cases (such as my last two voting districts) where the paper based systems did not share the "hanging chads" issue and had never had any known problems concerning fraud or miscounts.
* Upset that perfectly valid systems all over the country were scrapped in favor of retrofitted WINDOWS laptops and Windows touchscreen devices with only marginally tested software.
* Upset that in the 2004 election cycle, Democrats AGAIN cried foul in districts where lazy, incompetent election officials spent taxpayers money hand over fist too buy this junky hardware and software rather than do realistic requirements analysis, and particularly upset that while these changes took place (pre 2004) these same left wing complainers said NOTHING, waiting instead for the results that they didn't like.
or but that wasn't enough,
* Post 2004 I engaged in numerous debates with individuals who swore they were not complaining about the 2004 results, but were indeed interested in the issue. Again, these people grew silent as distance from the 2004 election increased. As I would bring up newly discovered issues with this Windoze based software (and hardware) they would thank me politely for reminding them and then go right back to Bush bashing, continuing to ignore the very REAL bipartisan problems that were being ignored by the mainstream media.
* While you say the results of 2006 were "overwhelming", in fact in many local elections the margin of victory, particularly for newly elected democrats were a dozen votes, and for state level offices a few hundred. Almost NONE of these votes were contested, even in cases where the Republican candidate had only to request a recount.
Did these Republican candidates even get a "good sportsmanship" pat on the back from the press? Saving the taxpayers millions of dollars in recount costs, in fact got them nothing except continued insults from people like you.
Your right, we should all be outraged (and I am) by slipshod voting practices, whether the cause is corruption or incompetence (and very little is being done at the election-official level about incompetence), how many of them can you name who have been "fired"?
We should also stop accepting the fact that other types of voting corruption has gone on for years in largely Democratic districts. It seems to be widely accepted, even among Democrats that this corruption goes on, but where is the outcry? As your post indicates (not intentionally I'm sure) many Democrats are of the "ends justifies the means" school of thinking and simply don't consider an election invalid if their candidate wins. Of course there are Republicans who fall into this category too, but silence from the left is deafening.
The results of this, which will serve us (you) lazy citizens right, will be another ma
> So, you're saying that you failed a Turing test? :-)
Tell me more about failed a Turing test?
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
Seriously.
All it would take is another well-timed 9-11, or a total market collapse, or some other disaster at the right time, and I can easily see Bush declaring himself Emperor for Life.
Either that, or the next guy will be even worse. "The Prezinator" anyone?
Ugh. In in world where the RIAA has guys with flak jackets and machine guns, any crazy thing can happen.
-FL
There's one huge reason why paper ballots are the best: You don't have to be computer-literate to understand paper ballots and the physical security needed to keep them safe. Transparency and trust in the voting systems are absolutely essential to our democracy.