Slashdot Mirror
A Step Backward For Voting System Transparency
Verified Voting is reporting that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) introduced the Bipartisan Electronic Voting Reform Act (S. 3212). While having many commendable features, this bill also has a few stinkers, including language that would exempt from any verification requirement those paperless voting systems purchased before January 1, 2009 to meet HAVA's accessibility requirements. This would leave millions of voters (particularly those with disabilities) dependent on insecure paperless electronic machines for years to come. The Senate Rules and Administration Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow, so if you have an opinion, now is the time to make yourself heard. Rush Holt has a much better bill.
Hold up.
I thought it was the House's job to introduce new legislation.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
You're missing a link. How does it prove their corrupt? It is also possible they are just ignorant or haven't thought it through. To show corruption you would have to prove that they knew about the problems but ignored them to instead focus on campaign contributions the makers of the machines gave them.
Exactly. This is why I think that all legislation should be read aloud. Senators/Congressmen must pass a comprehension test proving that they actually understand the bill. Have an at-arms-length ombudsman in charge of writing and administering said test. If they fail the test, they don't get to vote. If a certain percentage of congresscritters fail the test, the bill is scrapped. If the people voting for it can't understand it, it should not be made into law. Period. Another idea is to fine anyone who votes for a bill that is later found unconstitutional. I want my politicians thinking about law, not politics.
Cynical Idealist
I would love to see them implement the e-voting, and then see some districts get hacked without a paper trail, and have a few times the number of registered voters have votes. And have it be widespread enough to not be able to be swept under the rug.
Maybe I'm just too passive aggressive and like the 'I told you so' attitude.
This is not the funny you're looking for.
FYI - I am in California and Im pretty sure I could care less about these kinds of "sponsorships", but then again, maybe it's because Im not part of these groups?
Im pretty sure the Berkeley men's water polo team, doesn't care that the US senate congratulated them on winning - I think the act of winning, and the trophy takes care of that.
Im fairly confidant that most Californians(at least around the major cities) don't care about things like that, and care more about her screw ups on FISA, obsession with video game violence, and the rest of her poor record.
IMO Boxer > Feinstein and I really hope we can replace Feinstein soon enough. Seeing this list influences my opinion even more
Another idea is to fine anyone who votes for a bill that is later found unconstitutional.
Also reward (possibly using that same fine money) anyone who kills a bill. Year by year, we should strive to have -less- laws than the year before---not more.
It seems we're upto a point where nobody can possibly even skim over all the laws in their entire lifetime, much less understand a small fraction of them. And it's only getting worse year after year. Sorta like the tax code.
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy