Judge Voids Un-Auditable California Election

For only the second time in California history, a judge in Alameda County voided an election result and called for the election to be re-run, because the e-voting tallies from Diebold machines couldn't be audited. The vote was on a controversial ballot measure addressing the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries, and the result was a close margin. Activists went to court to demand a recount, but after the lawsuit was filed, elections officials sent voting machines back to Diebold. The court found that 96% of the necessary audit information had been erased. The judge ordered the ballot measure to be re-run in the next election.

Comments

Re:New business model

[loafing_oaf]

The ATMs I use print receipts. I wonder why Diebold doesn't do the same with voting machines. I mean, stick with what works.

Re:Conspiracy hat ON!

[clubby]

"What's the old adage? Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." FWIW, that's known as Hanlon's Razor.

Re:Schedule I Status

[Scrameustache]

The debate over whether marijuana should be recreationally legal, whether its use commonly endangers others (say, driving under the influence), and what any penalties should be is heavily clouded by this problem. It also makes the whole drug problem harder because it makes the entire drug classification system look partisan and useless, which, to some extent, it is exactly that. It results in a loss of respect for the system.

A lot of loss of respect for this obviously corrupt and dishonest system. Indeed.

Regarding the latest red herring (driving), the studies done on that have hilarious results: Instead of proving that drug-taking while driving increased the risk of accidents, researchers found that the mellowing effects of cannabis made drivers more cautious and so less likely to drive dangerously.

Although the cannabis affected reaction time in regular users, its effects appear to be substantially less dangerous than fatigue or drinking. Research by the Australian Drugs Foundation found that cannabis was the only drug tested that decreased the relative risk of having an accident.

It is more dangerous to drive tired than to drive high.

Re:It's a question of degree

[Dragonslicer]

Reasonable intelligent supporters of marijuana legalization don't think it's harmless, they just think it's less harmful than alcohol Or less harmful than any other prescription drug. I've never smoked marijuana, and I don't really personally approve of people doing it just for recreation (not saying I would stop people from doing it in their homes, I would just wag my finger a bit), but if doctors say it will help their patients, I'd tend to believe them more than I would politicians. Remember, it's still illegal to use a prescription drug if you don't have a prescription for it.

Re:Why

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Schedule I drugs are illegal, period, because the government feels that there's no legitimate reason you should be using them. They consider any use of a Schedule I substance a "recreational" use, because in their opinion, you couldn't possibly be using that substance to treat any illness or condition.

Which brings up the questions:
  - What is illegitimate about recreation?
and more importantly:
  - Where does the government claim to find constitutional authorization to ban particular recreations?

Of course since the RICO laws reestablished the financial incentive structure that drove the Spanish Inquisition you'll have a hard time getting support to strike down the drug laws from those who benefit in government and law enforcement.