Computerized Election Results With No Election

_Sharp'r_ writes "In Honduras, according to breaking Catalan newspaper reports (translations available, USA Today mention), authorities have seized 45 computers containing certified election results for a constitutional election that never happened. The election had been scheduled for June 28, but on that day the president, Manuel Zelaya, was ousted. The 'certified' and detailed electronic records of the non-existent election show Zelaya's side having won overwhelmingly."

Comments

Yeah, and?

[girlintraining]

Oh noes, electronic records can be faked by people who have physical access to the machines. Didn't see THAT one coming.

Re:Yeah, and?

[Anonymous Coward]

Zelaya, you bastaheywaitasecond. Didn't the authorities have access to the machines, too?

The new government already has problems with bad press. The army killed a pro-Zelaya protestor: http://observers.france24.com/en/content/20090709-honduran-daily-photoshop-blood-crackdown-victim-murillo-coup-zelaya. And the police arrested his dad for some reason. Also, a union leader was killed (not clear who did it).

So they could have done the manipulation to distract from the bad news about them. They lied previously about Zelaya's resignation letter: http://incakolanews.blogspot.com/2009/06/honduras-coup-check-out-false.html

Or was it Zelaya? We don't know and we probably never will. What I know is: Voting machines suck.

Re:Yeah, and?

[cjb658]

Heck, you don't even need a computer to do that.

Re:Yeah, and?

[Happy-R-BOB]

I think the real point is electronic voting machines make the not so simple task of election rigging into something that is literally push button simple. It only takes one person with physical access to a single voting machine to change the outcome of a national election.

Re:Yeah, and?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing new. USA does the same - remember 2000, and 2004? After WW2, election results for East Europe countries freshly sold into Communist slavery (by USA&UK at Yalta) ..those results were available 3 days before the 'free election' happened. Or take Zimbabwe, where 12 million votes for Mugabe (a Chinese puppet installed by the UK) came from a total population of 10 million. Elections are strange business, strange indeed..

Re:Yeah, and?

[unitron]

Oh noes, electronic records can be faked by people who have physical access to the machines.

Especially if they managed to hustle the previous owner out of the country almost a month before they "suddenly discover" them. : - )

Re:Yeah, and?

[nomadic]

Oh noes, electronic records can be faked by people who have physical access to the machines. Didn't see THAT one coming.

You are completely missing the point. This story does not have a technological angle, it has a political one. I'm surprised it made it to slashdot.

Re:Yeah, and?

[mi]

I'm just glad, that it can not possibly happen here, can it? Wouldn't you hate to go back to the "hanging chads", that a human being can see?

Re:Yeah, and?

[ccmay]

Nothing new. USA does the same - remember 2000, and 2004?

--

I remember no such thing. I do remember that a thuggish Democratic plot to steal the 2000 election was foiled by the narrowest margin, and that all of the Florida newspapers investigated it and agreed that Bush won. Only the lunatic fringe think 2004 was anything but free and fair.

-ccm

Re:Yeah, and?

[Anonymous Coward]

â The Department of State had prior knowledge of the coup.

â The Department of State and the US Congress funded and advised the actors and organizations in Honduras that participated in the coup.

â The Pentagon trained, schooled, commanded, funded and armed the Honduran armed forces that perpetrated the coup and that continue to repress the people of Honduras by force.

â The US military presence in Honduras, that occupies the Soto Cano (Palmerola) military base, authorized the coup dâ(TM)etat through its tacit complicity and refusal to withdraw its support of the Honduran military involved in the coup.

â The US Ambassador in Tegucigalpa, Hugo Llorens, coordinated the removal from power of President Manuel Zelaya, together with Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon y John Negroponte, who presently works as an advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

â From the first day the coup occurred, Washington has referred to âoeboth partiesâ involved and the necessity for âoedialogueâ to restore constitutional order, legitimizing the coup leaders by regarding them as equal players instead of criminal violators of human rights and democratic principles.

â The Department of State has refused to legally classify the events in Honduras as a âoecoup dâ(TM)etatâ, nor has it suspended or frozen its economic aid or commerce to Honduras, and has taken no measures to effectively pressure the de facto regime.

â Washington manipulated the Organization of American States (OAS) in order to buy time, therefore allowing the coup regime to consolidate and weaken the possibility of President Zelayaâ(TM)s immediate return to power, as part of a strategy still in place that simply seeks to legitimate the de facto regime and wear down the Honduran people that still resist the coup.

â Secretary of State Clinton and her spokesmen stopped speaking of President Zelayaâ(TM)s return to power after they designated Costa Rican president Oscar Arias as the âoemediatorâ between the coup regime and the constitutional government; and now the State Department refers to the dictator that illegally took power during the coup, Roberto Micheletti, as the âoeinterim caretaker presidentâ.

â The strategy of âoenegotiatingâ with the coup regime was imposed by the Obama administration as a way of discrediting President Zelaya â" blaming him for provoking the coup â" and legitimizing the coup leaders.

â Members of the US Congress â" democrats and republicans â" organized a visit of representatives from the coup regime in Honduras to Washington, receiving them with honors in different arenas in the US capital.

â Despite the fact that originally it was Republican Senator John McCain who coordinated the visit of the coup regime representatives to Washington through a lobby firm connected to his office, The Cormac Group, now, the illegal regime is being representated by top notch lobbyist and Clinton attorney Lanny Davis, who is using his pull and influence in Washington to achieve overall acceptance â" cross party lines â" of the coup regime in Honduras.

â Otto Reich and a Venezuelan named Robert Carmona-Borjas, known for his role as attorney for the dictator Pedro Carmona during the April 2002 coup dâ(TM)etat in Venezuela, aided in preparing the groundwork for the coup against President Zelaya in Honduras.

â The team designated from Washigton to design and help prepare the coup in Honduras also included a group of US ambassadors recently named in Central America, experts in destabilizing efforts against the Cuban revolution, and Adolfo Franco, ex administrator for USAIDâ(TM)s Cuba âoetransition to democracyâ program.

No one doubts that the fingerprints of Washington are all over the coup dâ(TM)etat against President Manuel Zelaya that began last June 28th. Many analysts, writers

Really

[CSFFlame]

Does anyone still think pure electronic elections are even a remotely good idea anymore?

Re:Really

[fastest fascist]

Yea, because they totally couldn't have stuffed boxes full of fake paper ballots.

Re:Really

[Kuroji]

As it has been said from the beginning, anyone with physical access to the machine and sufficient knowledge of how the machine works can alter the results, and it is clear that the ousted President (who had called for an illegal referendum to have term limits removed so he could basically be president for life) had people with both those things.

For electronic voting, you have to assume that the manufacturer and everyone involved in the storage, transport and operation of such voting machines to be acting in good faith, and I don't think you can find a country on this planet that has everyone acting this way.

Technology is a great thing, but it is not the solution to every problem.

Re:Really

[Peaker]

Its far easier for a 3rd party overwatching election committee to verify that the box is empty before the election, than to verify that the electronic election is actually reset, and the machines aren't tampered, and have no back doors, and so forth.

Re:Really

[Daniel Dvorkin]

You may not have noticed this, but paper ballots are ... made of paper. And lots of ballots take up lots of space. They're heavy. They have to be disposed of. This takes time. People notice. There are witnesses. The amount of effort involved in altering or covering up the results of a fully computerized election is so much less than the amount of effort involved in altering or covering up the results of an election that uses paper ballots that the two aren't really comparable.

Of course paper ballots are no guarantee of an honest election. Nor is there any guarantee that locking your door will keep your house from being broken into. But an all-electronic election is like leaving your front door hanging wide open and putting a sign in your yard that says, "Come take stuff."

Re:Really

[Darkness404]

Sure, but in these countries which are so corrupt, who is to say that the 3rd party isn't bribed? Its a heck of a lot easier to fake a paper election, however, its a lot easier to trace an electronic election that was rigged.

Re:Really

[Anonymous Coward]

As it has been said from the beginning, anyone with physical access to the machine and sufficient knowledge of how the machine works can alter the results, and it is clear that the ousted President (who had called for an illegal referendum to have term limits removed so he could basically be president for life) had people with both those things.

Of course, it would also have been possible to fake the fake election results. On one hand you've got a president who seems to have been trying to get terms limits removed (not a good sign), on the other hand you have a military coup (and there is a strong tendency for military coups to turn into military dictatorships).

Either way, the fact that electronic voting was involved is not helping the situation.

Re:Really

[MacTO]

The main benefit of paper ballots are the many eyes and hands that the ballots and ballot boxes go through.

Think of it this way: the trademark images of the Iraqi elections a few years back were the inked thumb and the translucent ballot box. Neither are inherently secure, but the inked thumb made it more difficult for people to vote early and vote often without the risk of someone noticing it. Likewise, the translucent ballot boxes made it more difficult for the bins to be stuffed before hand without the risk of someone noticing it. Computers are so incredibly opaque that it is nearly impossible for someone to notice discreprancies without direct and intensive observations as well as a great deal of technical knowledge.

Now we all know that elections are fixed, even with pen and paper ballots. It is possible to pay off the right people so that they conveniently don't notice anything. Almost everyone else can be intimidated into not noticing anything. But, either way, more people will notice the discreprancies and people tend to have long memories about such things. So there is still a potential for them to remedy it.

Re:Really

[Jarjarthejedi]

"They have to be disposed of. This takes time. People notice. There are witnesses."

The president won the election, here, take this white confetti with random bits of black on it and spread it around to celebrate!

Disposing of a lot of paper isn't hard at all, companies do it constantly without anyone noticing or caring. Stick the ballots in a shredder, a good high quality one, and what comes out can't be considered ballots anymore, just random scraps of paper that could be anything. Take the scraps, put them in storage for a day or two, then toss them. Ta da, no evidence, and only a few witnesses (no more than electronic deletion requires).

E-voting is unsafe because there's no verification, not because it doesn't make paper ballots. If the e-voting machine spit out a paper ballot with your vote on it directly into the box it would still be insecure because you'd have no way to verify that what was on the ballot was what you wanted on the ballot. Paper != Instant safety, or even mild security.

Re:Really

[MooUK]

Is it? Why?

If I'm capable of rigging an election electronically, I could be capable of covering my tracks.

Re:Really

[TheLink]

Uh, to rig a paper election you will have to hide something. The more hiding you do the more suspicious it is. The more open the process is, the harder it is to cheat. With people watching each step e.g. checking that the boxes are empty, observing the voting, the storing and opening of the boxes, and the counting, it gets very hard to cheat on a massive enough scale.

Go see how paper voting is done in various countries and you can see it's really hard to rig in some countries, and easier in other countries (ballot boxes are moved, counting is done in secret by one organization).

Sure you can bribe people. But if so many are bribable, the country is screwed up so badly it hardly matters what system you use.

In contrast an electronic election is mostly _hidden_ to observers. So it should be suspicious by default.

If you set it up so that people can observe the storage and counting of the electronic votes, it's going to be as slow as paper voting, but more expensive and complicated.

The easiest way you can rig paper elections that are done openly and properly is with postal votes. However electronic voting systems are just as vulnerable to this problem - if not more so.

Re:Really

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Disposing of a lot of paper isn't hard at all, companies do it constantly without anyone noticing or caring.

Unless the company is under investigation, in which case a whole lot of people notice and care. And it's very often possible to find the people whose job it is and, with appropriate pressure, get them to admit what documents they were assigned to destroy.

Look, of course if the election is corrupt enough, it doesn't matter. The USSR held paper-ballot "elections" for seventy years in which the Communist candidates always got some randomly chosen but large percentage of the vote; everyone knew that had nothing to do with reality, but it wasn't like there was anything anyone could do about it. But if you have a country with a reasonably honest election system, the kind of petty vote-rigging that can throw a close election is a lot harder to get away with when there's a physical record. Preferably a large, bulky record that will take time to destroy, and real effort to tamper with in other ways.

I don't know anything about Honduran politics and don't claim to. But in the US, our preferred method of dealing with questionable elections is the recount. With paper ballots, this make sense, and you can bet the process will be closely watched; if there is serious ballot tampering going on, there's a good chance that someone will talk. With electronic results, what you basically get is, "We ran the query and it gave us the same count as last time -- imagine that!"

Re:Really

[im_thatoneguy]

I've thought about this a lot and I think I've come up with a 99.9999999999% secure system. What we need is an encrypted means of verifying our vote after the fact and two receipts.

Then you could independently survey people's actual votes after the fact if people "exit poll" by dropping off their second official receipt. It would be completely anonymous and verifiable.

The receipt would be a 2D Barcode containing: Encrypted name and indicated vote.

You build a database of these encrypted names and votes which are double checkable when you get home or at booths run by party representatives with just an internet connection. Then everyone can check their vote. In order to avoid the government intentionally miscounting but correctly verifying your report you could provide the database after the fact to anyone interested. People could then verify their vote on a third party server as well.

Lastly the extra Exit Poll receipts could be entered into a database on the spot by the media to verify that there is no indication of tampering.

Electronic Voting COULD be easy and safe. It could also be safer, more transparent and reliable than paper ballots. If we just do it right.

Re:Really

[ourcraft]

(who had called for an illegal referendum to have term limits removed so he could basically be president for life) NO he did not. He wanted a non-binding referendum, on a constitutional congress, to be held after the elections in November. It would not have affected his term. He was arrested and deposed, for talking about it, they said. Since the coup they have come up with more reasons why a military coup was necessary, that sound a lot like Fox News. And allowing people to run twice or three time or four times means they are Senator Lugar capable of asking the voters if they still want an election. You know like everywhere else. Term limits, even in the US, is very rare. Why this means "basically for life" is beyond me.

Re:Really

[aynoknman]

The Iraq elections show that the Americans are capable of running a fair and open election ... when their own lobbyists and political machines aren't involved.
Just a minute "lobbyist and political machines" -- Hmm, I'm getting redundant.

Re:Really

[Plunky]

Then everyone can check their vote

Unfortunately, so can their abusive spouse ("vote like this or I will beat you black and blue"), their abusive boss ("vote like this or I will sack you"), their local mafia boss ("vote like this or you will be wearing concrete shoes") and the local freemasons lodge ("vote like this or we will ruin your business")

apart from that though, I find your ideas intriguing.. do you have a newsletter?

Re:Really

[Fallen Kell]

Which is why I think that any electronic voting system needs a voter verified printout of his/her selections which is the official ballot which is cast. The electronic vote tally is not the official count. The printed ballot could be easily coded so that an electronic counting machine could count the vote (something like an optical scanner, or more like a system which can photograph the ballot and pattern match/color code the vote results). In any case, you have a physical medium which was verified by the voter as the official document. You gain the usability benefits of the electronic system in terms of how you select your vote and still keep the integrity of the paper ballet system by having lasting physical media which can not be easily corrupted as the true ballet.

Re:Really

[Cyberax]

There are such systems - "Chaum's Visual Electronic Voting", for example. They also have a nice property - you can't use your receipt as a proof that you voted 'the right way'.

Re:Really

[DrugCheese]

In contrast an electronic election is mostly _hidden_ to observers. So it should be suspicious by default.

Why do they need to be mostly _hidden_? It's just that systems today, made by private corporations, are hidden. They can be made to be more open to the public, while retaining security. It is easier to tamper with electronic votes, but at the same time it should be easier to track tampering with those same electronic votes if the system was open and available for the public to monitor.

Re:Really

[Kuroji]

Term limits for the country's leader are not rare. He attempted to call a referendum directly, when it is stated that he does not have the power to do that in the local constitution; the courts and the legislature refused to have such a referendum when asked. This is what makes it illegal - he does not legally have the power to call such a referendum.

Is it any surprise that he was ousted? And is it any surprise that the referendum never happened and yet the results are sitting on the servers?

Re:Really

[migla]

You can't have people leave with the receipt or able to check their vote afterwards. If you leave with the receipt, the thug that has kidnapped your dog or promised you a reward for your vote can check your vote.

Re:Really

[Brickwall]

Quite an interesting solution to a problem that shouldn't exist.

This is only a problem in the US because you insist on voting for everything from dogcatcher to President on one day. No wonder it takes time to tabulate. Here in Canada, when we have a federal election, it's a federal election. I can concentrate on the candidates in my riding, and the policies of the various federal parties, and make a choice. Same thing when it's a provincial election. The only time we get multiple ballots is municipal elections, when you might be voting for a mayor, a local councilor, and a school trustee.

Balloting ends at 8 pm local time, and the results are usually known within two hours. Some very close seats may require a recount, and if the results are close enough, a losing candidate can require a second recount. But I can't remember a single time in my life when I went to bed without knowing who'd won.

And, as others have noted, each party sends a "scrutineer" to the counting process. Although the actual counts are performed by Elections Canada official (non-partisan in theory), each party can have a person present to challenge rejected or unclear ballots.

I would fight like hell against any attempt to replace this simple, workable, verifiable solution with electronic voting which could easily be subject to manipulation, just so we could know the results an hour sooner.

Re:Really

[rs79]

Better: http://www.usenix.org/event/evt07/tech/full_papers/riva/riva_html/

Re:Really

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you people have elections observers over there? Or, let me guess, they are confined to "free-democracy zones"?

Re:Really

[arose]

The USSR held paper-ballot "elections" for seventy years in which the Communist candidates always got some randomly chosen but large percentage of the vote; everyone knew that had nothing to do with reality, but it wasn't like there was anything anyone could do about it.

You must mean hundred percent, that is what you get when there are only candidates from the communist party.

Re:Really

[nedlohs]

The USSR cheated the simplest way, they just decided who would be on the ballot. Then everyone got to vote for that person.

Makes counting easier I guess.

Re:Really

[Kingrames]

Patently and mathematically false.

The fact that both of those actions could fail means that it is less statistically likely that both will be true, even if one is given to be true.

Every effort taken to make rigging difficult WILL succeed, in some small manner, in discouraging that behavior, if only because it becomes more difficult..

Re:Really

[TheLink]

By the time you get an electronic system where:

0) The election can be fair and be understood as fair enough (especially by the average voter)
1) Independent+Party representatives can verify with high certainty that the counting starts from zero (boxes are empty)
2) Independent+Party observers can observe that it's one person one vote.
3) Independent+Party observers can keep watch over the storage (and the transportation if necessary - preferable that the ballots aren't moved, but sometimes there's no choice) to help ensure that tampering is hard.
4) Independent+Party observers can observe the counting[1]
5) The voting remains anonymous (I personally don't think this is that important, but lots of people seem to believe it is).

You'll probably have something that looks very much like a paper voting system, only a lot more expensive and complex. How is it going to be different AND better?

Do show me how you can have a electronic voting system that satisfies all that and will be better and cheaper.

[1] Over here as part of the count process, the counters will lift the paper ballot up to let everyone around who is interested to look at it. The different parties can have their own people tallying up the votes themselves. So far over here the complaints are mainly about postal votes (which e-voting has the same probs with), and the bribing of _voters_ by politicians.

Regarding the vote buying, if the voters think that it's better to get some of their money back upfront rather than get some other benefit via big promises that's up to them.

Re:Really

[makomk]

Go see how paper voting is done in various countries and you can see it's really hard to rig in some countries, and easier in other countries (ballot boxes are moved, counting is done in secret by one organization).

This is one of the suspicious aspects of the Iranian elections, actually. They were supposed to have various of the standard safeguards (observers from all parties at polling stations, votes counted locally with the observers presents, etc). These weren't followed in the last elections.

Re:Really

[ourcraft]

This is completely ludicrous! And its marked insightful! I am completely amazed! It doesnt even make sense! Your facts are not correct and the logic is unsound even if the facts were right. The law they say he broke, say, is trying to change the law to run again. Not calling a referendum. He has the power to call a non-binding referendum, it is specifically called for in the laws, under the section on Participation. They say his attempting to hold a non-binding referendum "was an attempt to change the law to run again" as if a non binding referendum was a change of law. Its like arresting soemone for taking a poll. AM I surprised he was ousted? Yes. Because it was a military coup, with public relations people being paid to fill the internet and lobby congress. Strip the military government of all aid and re-instate democracy, send the troops back to barracks.

Re:Really

[Peaker]

The voting remains anonymous (I personally don't think this is that important, but lots of people seem to believe it is).

Of course its important, otherwise voter intimidation, as well as buying votes become much more serious problems.

So Impeach Him

[Doc Ruby]

There's a lot of reason to believe Zelaya is corrupt, and shouldn't be Honduras' president. But that means Honduras should impeach him, or convict and imprison him, removing him from office, if that's how their constitution works (which is what appears to to be the case).

Any government process that features the army forcing a president out on a plane in his pajamas is at least as unacceptable as a crooked election keeping one in power.

Re:So Impeach Him

[I'm just joshin]

That's pretty much what they did according to their own constitution. Unfortunately the rest of the world is getting Chavez's spin on the matter. -J

Re:So Impeach Him

[per contra]

They did exactly what their constitution called for and removed him from office after their Supreme Court decided he had violated their constitution. That should have been the end of the story but everyone wants to call it a coup which it wasn't. The leader of his own party called for his ouster.

Re:So Impeach Him

[st0rmshad0w]

Assuming of course those election results aren't manufactured evidence to point to Zelaya's corruption. I don't know anything about the government there, and even though it wouldnt surprise me that he is corrupt, I know enough about computers to never trust something like this as genuine just on the fact that it exists.

Re:So Impeach Him

[JimboFBX]

If a corrupt house and a corrupt senate in the US supported a corrupt president then there would be no impeachment. This is why the second amendment is the right to bear arms so we can retake the government by force.

Re:So Impeach Him

[FlyingSquidStudios]

Good luck taking the government by force with your handguns versus their stealth bombers.

Re:So Impeach Him

[RabidMoose]

Which is why it becomes so very important for a would-be revolution to have the support of stealth bomber pilots.

Re:So Impeach Him

[Henry V .009]

They did impeach him. Their Congress and Supreme Court both voted to oust him. Further their constitution says that if a President tries to extend his term (which is what he did) he immediately stops being President.

You're right about the pajamas thing. They should have shot him and saved themselves the trouble.

Re:So Impeach Him

[Sir_Lewk]

Practicalities asside, that is the rational behind the 2nd ammendment.

Re:So Impeach Him

[BCoates]

So, If we'd only thought to use stealth bombers in Iraq, we wouldn't have needed six years of using pretty much all of our military to occupy a country the size of California with a smaller population?

Re:So Impeach Him

[Kreigaffe]

Actually, the supreme court down there DID rule that he was in violation of the constitution and ordered and arrest warrant. The army then kicked him to the curb, rather than imprison him. Any way you look at it, legally, he should no longer be in power. Exile instead of imprisonment? He SHOULD be happy for that, but somehow the rest of the world is taking this opportunity to say something against military coups. Uh, rather than, maybe taking the chance when it's a coup against a leader that wasn't about to be arrested for violation of the constitution.

Re:So Impeach Him

[Anonymous Coward]

Honduras prevented a wannbe dictator from securing power. That is a novel and brilliant outcome for central America. Let us dare to hope it isn't a fluke. Honduras is about 7.5 million people, smaller than LA or NY; if they need to run an outlaw out of town on his horse I say more power to them; let the lawyers spectate, or not.

That he was a chavismo leftist is the only reason you and your ilk take any issue with it. Had he been a pro-business US ally and the military had blown his brains all over his wife with a 12 gauge you'd have nothing but praise.

It's tragic your messiah came down on the wrong side of this so publicly (squandering any claims of non-interference for the rest of his hopefully limited rein.) I know it's tough. Buck up. Honduras is already well out of the news cycle; you can stop shilling now.

Re:So Impeach Him

[Darkness404]

We could nuke Iraq and Afghanistan and the mission would be a "success", heck, already it is a success, terrorist groups now are even more underground making the possibility of them hitting the USA again unlikely. However, when we killed a ton of the terrorists, those there began to attack us, and its a lot easier to commit a murder if you simply go down three blocks than having to fake papers and fly into the USA.

Re:So Impeach Him

[MooUK]

If California rebels, you're screwed, it seems...

Re:So Impeach Him

[Sperbels]

Good luck taking the government by force with your handguns versus their stealth bombers.

...because guerrilla warfare never works...does it?

Re:So Impeach Him

[TimSSG]

The US President is just running up a balloon to see how well his third term prospects are doing. Tim S

Re:So Impeach Him

[sjames]

Sometimes corrupt officials perform corrupt acts to illegally block their legal removal from power. In that case, you can either accept your fate as his subject for life or throw the bum out by force.

He should probably be happy they didn't just shoot him.

Re:So Impeach Him

[Anonymous Coward]

They did exactly what their constitution called for and removed him from office after their Supreme Court decided he had violated their constitution.

But there's also this notion of due process / fair trial / etc.

According to Wikipedia, the Supreme Court issued a secret order for his detention and then he was forced out of the country by the military. That doesn't exactly sound like a fair trial.

Re:So Impeach Him

[Anonymous Coward]

If California rebels, you're screwed, it seems...

They might as well, the state's in a revolting condition already.

Re:So Impeach Him

[Atlantis-Rising]

In which case, whether or not you have handguns is irrelevant, isn't it?

Re:So Impeach Him

[Kyusaku Natsume]

But they did an half assed legal job to "impeach" him. If he made a crime, he sould have been impeached, arrested and sent on trial for his crimes, not simply taking him away ilegally -acording to the same Constitution than everyone is quoting. On something has important like the Presidency of a country, following the correct legal procedures is vital. If the current honduran government did it they woldn't be in this mess. Unless we must accept that on Constitutions, the only articles that apply are only the ones we like, like both parties did in Honduras.

Re:So Impeach Him

[SanguineV]

If the Civilization series has taught me anything, it is that even a Warrior or Militia unit is sometimes a match for a Stealth Bomber.

Re:So Impeach Him

[bkpark]

Which is also why we shouldn't develop remote-/self-controlled bomber/fighters that can be massively controlled from a single command center. Machines don't have conscience and will obey any order, even evil ones.

The moment we give up our weapons (either one held by civilians or the military) to centralized control (usually by automation), we are giving up our freedom, and not necessarily via the Skynet scenario.

Re:So Impeach Him

[Brickwall]

I've posted elsewhere on this, but the Honduran constitution does not have an impeachment process. Also, although you didn't say this, others have contended someone (either Zelaya or the current civilian government - they took the current Speaker of the House and made him President; it's not an f***ing military government) fixed voting machines. Honduras doesn't have voting machines. Zelaya had paper ballots printed up, which he asked the army to distribute. When the Army chief refused to do so, Zelaya sacked him. The Supreme Court reinstated him. Zelaya then got his supporters to seize the ballots anyway. That's when he was hustled out of the country. Geez, there's so much idiocy, misrepresentation, and error here, you'd think I was on /. Oh, wait...

Re:So Impeach Him

[bkpark]

If the Civilization series has taught me anything, it is that even a Warrior or Militia unit is sometimes a match for a Stealth Bomber.

Only if it's grounded. Non-artillery ground-units (or air units with air superiority) cannot attack a plane in flight. And unless the Stealth Bomber is seriously damaged, there's no chance in hell of a Warrior unit defending its attack.

Re:So Impeach Him

[Attila Dimedici]

But they did an half assed legal job to "impeach" him. If he made a crime, he sould have been impeached, arrested and sent on trial for his crimes, not simply taking him away ilegally -acording to the same Constitution than everyone is quoting. On something has important like the Presidency of a country, following the correct legal procedures is vital. If the current honduran government did it they woldn't be in this mess. Unless we must accept that on Constitutions, the only articles that apply are only the ones we like, like both parties did in Honduras.

There are no provisions in the Honduran Constitution for impeachment. However, the Honduran Constitution does call for any elected official who proposes to alter the term limits on President be removed from office...which is what they did.

Re:So Impeach Him

[russotto]

The US President is just running up a balloon to see how well his third term prospects are doing.

If the current US President, who seems intent on proving he's basically a version of George W. Bush except for environmental issues, doesn't watch out, he's not going to get a _second_ term.

Re:So Impeach Him

[Anonymous Coward]

Rationale
Amendment

Re:So Impeach Him

[Kingrames]

"Sire! The peasants are revolting!"

"Yes, disgusting creatures."

Re:So Impeach Him

[selven]

If we wanted to, we could have cleared Iraq of all hostiles within 2 weeks. We just had that annoying requirement of keeping some civilians alive (and not wrecking the oil fields).

Re:So Impeach Him

[digitalchinky]

According to Wikipedia? (giggle, you're amusing)

Re:So Impeach Him

[DavidTC]

The people in Iraq who are attacking 'us' are not terrorists in general. Terrorists, by definition, attack civilians in an attempt to terrorize them. There are not that many US civilians walking around in Iraq.

Now, there are a few people attacking Iraqi civilians, but that's more 'ethnic cleansing' than 'terrorism'. In terrorism, you're attempting to get civilians to change their behavior out of terror, whereas in 'cleansing', you're just trying to kill them.

There, is, of course, some overlap. Killing a group of people straightforwardly is ethnic cleansing, whereas killing them horrible is sorta both...you're hoping that some of them be so terrified they will move elsewhere, and the rest you'll kill.

But, anyway, almost no terrorism against the US happens in Iraq. Shooting at soldiers is not terrorism.

Re:So Impeach Him

[SpacePunk]

Stealth bombers have a limited operational limit. They were created during the cold war when they were expected to carry nuclear arms, the conventional payload is pathetic.

And This Is the Government of a Country

[Doc Ruby]

Nobody's saying electronic records can't be faked through physical access to the machines. You're the only one who seems surprised at that, in order to deny it should be surprising. Which is a straw man argument.

This story is important because it crossed the line from possible, to (evidently) actual. Which has consequences. Not the expected consequences of helping keep a president in power, but (even more notably) in helping to keep one ousted by a coup this past week out of power, boosting arguments of his corruption.

Next you'll be sarcastically moaning "oh, noes, presidents are corrupt". FYI: Yes, and when they are, the people need to be outraged about it, and get rid of them.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[djupedal]

> This story is important because it crossed the line from possible, to (evidently) actual. Which has consequences.

Oh noes! Someone did something bad and got caught with their hand in the cookie jar! You're apparently the only one that didn't see that coming!

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[oldhack]

Oh well, the junta did it for the people already. Their junta's customer focus is likely well-suited for competitive 21st century global coup market.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[girlintraining]

This story is important because it crossed the line from possible, to (evidently) actual.

We knew it was possible, nay probable, from the day these machines were first used. It's like me pointing to a dark cloud coming and saying "Gee, looks like it's going to rain." Why is it suddenly news when I finally get wet?

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Martin Blank]

This was different from what one normally thinks of as a junta. I don't know if the Honduran constitution has a mechanism to remove a sitting president from office, but it was pretty clear that he was absolutely on his own. His own party told him to back off, and that they didn't support the referendum. As was reported by the media, the legislature had passed a law banning referenda within the 180 days prior to an election. The Supreme Court ruled the pending referendum illegal, and issued an injunction preventing the military from making preparations for it. The military was clearly ready to comply with the Supreme Court, but Zelaya was pushing ahead with the referendum anyway, and fired the head of the military. This action was reversed by the Supreme Court the next day. The attorney general issued an arrest warrant for Zelaya, and the day after, the Supreme Court ordered Zelaya's arrest; whether or not that is constitutional, I don't know. Wikipedia's article on the matter suggests that by even trying to hold the referendum, the constitution required that he was to be removed from office.

Presumably, much of this could have been handled better, particularly the removal of Zelaya from the country. But Zelaya seemed to be intent on doing things in a way that is at best gray; that the original ballots were taken possession of by Zelaya and his backers, and would be issued and counted by the same, shows that he had no intentions of having a fair election. If these election computers can be absolutely tied to him, it will at least complicate negotiations for his return.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Sun]

This story is important because it gives me, as a citizen of a country that has not switch to electronic voting on the one hand, and which has somewhat non-corrupt politicians (it has its own share of corrupt ones, mind you), a tool to show the well meaning ignorant politician the difference between "can" and "will". This may well prove to be the key to making sure electronic voting does not enter here (and if it does, that it would happen properly). Shachar

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[techno-vampire]

Why is it suddenly news when I finally get wet?

As you point out, we always knew it was going to happen, sooner or later. Now, it's finally happened. (Unless, of course, the evidence was faked to drive a stake through the heart of any movement to bring Zelaya back as president.) The other shoe has dropped. I'm very interested in watching how Honduras handles this, and how, if at all, they prove that Zelaya really intended to stuff the (virtual) ballot box.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[mrmeval]

You're thinking rationally and spewing facts again. He's the poster child of socialists and as such this is just a plot by conservatives in the US to overthrow the rightful ruler of a south american country.

I think I poked a hole in my cheek with that one.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[jmorris42]

> This was different from what one normally thinks of as a junta.

True enough. But it must be a 'coup' or 'junta' to justify what the US and the rest of the axis of evil is going to end up doing there. Which is use political, economic and if all else fails military power to abolish a lawful government and put a tyrant on an iron throne.

Yes I went there. The US government is now part of the Axis of Evil. It supports Castro, Chavez, Ortega, Iamanutjob, Hamas, Crazy Kim and every other member of the Axis of Evil. We oppose oppose every friend of Liberty. No the American People don't support the insanity but then the people in most of the rest of the Axis powers don't either. The big question is whether we will get one more shot a real election to fix this mess or whether the 08 elections were our One Man, One Vote, One last Time.

Before you Obot twits mindlessly mark me flamebait or troll why not try rebutting my assertion? If I'm as crazy as you think you shouldn't have a problem showing some cases where the current administration has opposed evil or supported good.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Runaway1956]

Crossed the line from possible to - - -

Lemme try hard to unnerstand this concept. I'm tryin' real hard, so just bear with me. My feeble little mind .....

It has been demonstrable "possible" to do exactly this ever since the concept of electronic voting was first considered. To me, it was only a matter of time before some ballsy sumbitch decided to act on the possibility. Given time, and growing sophistication, manipulation of voting results should become more and more "undetectable".

Only fools and damn fools are willing to rely on the results of ephemeral electronic voting, without a PAPER TRAIL to back it up. There IS NO TRAIL of electrons - especially when the "winning" party has all the hardware, all the software, and they pass a law to make it illegal to have any part of the code, or to gain access to the hardware.

Fools, and damned fools.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm as crazy as you think you shouldn't have a problem showing some cases where the current administration has opposed evil or supported good

Placing complex issues into such (non)absolute terms is what I might consider crazy. Just because someone does something you disagree with doesn't make them evil. According to some vote I read about, most people disagree with you.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Lakitu]

Are you serious?

Gee, nuclear weapons can be used to devastate civilization as we know it. It'll still be news if it ever happens.

How about you spend a little time thinking before you speak?

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Brickwall]

I don't know if the Honduran constitution has a mechanism to remove a sitting president from office

They don't. See "hondurascrisis.org" for details from a Honduran.

Wikipedia's article on the matter suggests that by even trying to hold the referendum, the constitution required that he was to be removed from office.

Again, according to the link above, the constitution does say that trying to change the length of the President's term (currently 4 years) is treason. Zelaya was trying to change the rules to allow for his re-election. So, technically, he was committing treason.

Now, for all those who call this a "coup", ask yourself what the Honduran authorities were supposed to do? You had a President committing treason, repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court, and attempting to use the military to hold an illegal referendum. You don't have an impeachment process. Do you:

1: Put him in jail in Honduras? Possible, but then he's in a place where his supporters know where he is, which could lead to a mass assault in an attempt to free him. If that happens, hundreds of people could die, and incite a civil war.

2: Execute him. Obviously, a non-starter. It creates a martyr, and again the chance of civil war.

3: Exile him. Clearly the wisest choice. Get him out of the country, and away from his supporters, try to let the situation cool down, and get the facts out. The fact that CNN, the BBC, etc. are staunchly suppressing these facts, and dressing this up as a military coup says more about their agenda than it does their believability as objective news organizations.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[jmorris42]

> Placing complex issues into such (non)absolute terms is what I might consider crazy.

Ok, I'll bite. The problem is you consider them 'complex issues'.

> Just because someone does something you disagree with doesn't make them evil.

Ok, let this narrow minded idiot throw out some politicians, ideas, etc. that I call evil and see how far we can both agree and where you start seeing 'complexity.'

1. Nazism, Fascism and Communism are all Evil. Right?

2. The Klan, racism and other mindless intolerance is Evil. Right?

3. Any ideology that can support putting bombs on children and exploding them amongst civilians is Evil.

Now we will probably start to diverge.

4. The people who champion the above Evil causes are themselves Evil.

5. Stalin was Evil. Lenin was Evil. Hitler was Evil. Mao was evil. Arafat was Evil. Che was Evil. Castro is Evil. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is Evil. Hugo Chavez is Evil. Kim Jung Il is Evil. UBL is Evil.

6. Anyone who makes excuses for any of the above evil is either criminally stupid or themselves Evil. Anyone who knows what any of those people stand for and lends them material or moral support is Evil.

7. Thus every celebutard with enough brain cells to actually know what is what who goes to Cuba to stand with Castro is Evil.

8. Every celebutard who stands with Chavez is Evil.

9. William Ayers is, by both word and deed, a Communist (although he seems to think being a 'small c communist' makes it better) Revolutionary dedicated to the overthrow of our Republic. He has attended events with Chavez and spoken well of him. Thus by Rule 1 and 6 William Ayers is Evil.

10. Saul Alinsky was a Communist. Mr. Obama's 'Community Organizing' (more honest to say "Communist agitator") was working in the field for an Alinsky group and later as a trainer.

11. Rev. wright is at best a Socialist and probably a Communist. At any rate he associates and lends aid and comfort to them. He is also a bigot. So Rules 1, 2 and 6 condemn him as Evil.

12. President Obama has extensive ties to Alinsky's organizations, worked at high levels in Ayers biggest cash grab (the Annenburg Challenge Grant) and launched his political career in Ayers' home. He warmed a pew in Wright's church for over twenty years. So he has associated with and lent Communists aid for the entirety of his adult life.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Jeremy Erwin]

A recent article in Slate claimed that Honduras lacked a means of removing the President peacefully.

In virtually every other country in the world, Zelaya would have been removed from office. But, peculiarly, the Honduran Constitution does not include an impeachment procedureâ"Congress is entitled to name a new president only in the absence of the current one. So, rather than bringing Zelaya before a judge to be tried for his criminal misbehavior, the army rousted him out of bed and flew him off to Costa Rica in his pajamas. The legislature then voted to replace him with Roberto Micheletti, the head of Congress, who was next in the line of succession.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[jc42]

This story is important because it crossed the line from possible, to (evidently) actual. Which has consequences. Not the expected consequences of helping keep a president in power, but (even more notably) in helping to keep one ousted by a coup this past week out of power, boosting arguments of his corruption.

And how exactly do we know that this story is true, and the "election results" weren't faked by the current government? There's plenty of history everywhere of evidence of crimes being planted by the prosecutors, especially when political power is at stake.

Note that I'm not claiming that they faked the evidence. I'm asking how we know that it wasn't faked. Given that all the known evidence apparently comes solely from the prosecution, and would have been very easy to fake, I'd think that people should have some serious questions about the story. Is there independent evidence that hasn't passed through the hands of the prosecution?

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Jeremy Erwin]

When claims of "treason" interfere with liberty, treason should be redefined more narrowly.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Brickwall]

This isn't a case of "liberty"; this is a case of an elected official subject to term limits who was trying to subvert the constitution so he could extend his term, and although not proven, given his close friendship with Chavez, then declare himself "President for Life". I'm sure the originators of the document didn't include the provision that trying to change term limits for the President was treason on a whim.

Far better, I agree, that Honduras amend their constitution to include an impeachment process. But seriously, isn't "high crimes and misdemeanours" pretty wide in itself?

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[davester666]

> This story is important because it crossed the line from possible, to (evidently) actual. Which has consequences.

Consequences for who?

Both sides (the former president and the new government) will claim the other side did it. Both sides probably could have done it, as the machinery was in the possession of both governments.

Using electronic records just make it easier for a smaller group of people being needed to alter a given set of results, making it that much more difficult to prove who altered the results (either accidentally or on purpose).

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Chavez did exactly the same thing ... the only difference is that he succeeded.

And some people are behaving in ... predictable ... ways.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Anonymous Coward]

for some reason I think StrawMan is the new Godwin's Law on Slashdot.. It's always amazing to see who tries to throw that out there first, and it didn't used to be that way..

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[spiralpath]

>1. Nazism, Fascism and Communism are all Evil. Right?

You take three words with highly ambiguous (and very different) meanings, and you attempt to link them together using an extremely loaded word that only has relative meaning. This is where "complexity" comes into play. How would anyone even know if they agreed with you or not? Do you mean the actions of German Nazis in the Holocaust, Nazism as a political system, or people who label themselves Nazis? What is your understanding of Fascism? How can an economic structure (Communism) be "Evil"? Do you mean something else by it? What is Evil, not being defined relative to Good?

This one sentence you uttered makes you sound like a parrot for the hegemony. You need to define your terms, otherwise your entire chain of arguments, which is built on this extremely vague first premise, comes apart under scrutiny. I won't even approach your other "rules."

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[gandhi_2]

Nazism, fascism, and communism each place control of private wealth and put it under the control of the government. Nazism is just german national socialism. Fascism...government controlled commerce. Communism...government controlled property. If you consider yourself to be pro liberty, these ideals are evil. When the government can take anything away from you at any time, for any or no reason, that isn't liberty. It isn't freedom. There are no choices. That IS evil.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Anonymous Coward]

oh noes, it was supposed to be funny, JACKASS!

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Jeremy Erwin]

This isn't a case of "liberty";

Americans were free to elect FDR four times; and the legislatures of the United States are free to change the Constitution to allow future voters to do so. It is not treason to advocate that this be done. Violent overthrow of the constitution, sure, but amending it out of existence isn't treason-- in the United States. In other nations, it might be treason to fuck the king's Mistress.., but that tramples upon the liberty of two consenting adults.

. I'm sure the originators of the document didn't include the provision that trying to change term limits for the President was treason on a whim. Far better, I agree, that Honduras amend their constitution to include an impeachment process.

Whims can lead to misplaced priorities.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[nbates]

So, which one is faking the results? the president or the opposition... I mean, those could as well be fake results in order to justify the military action in the eyes of international opinion.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Jeremy Erwin]

You're free to vote against him-- twice, in fact.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's the democrats now in power. Be careful, the story just outed their "secret" winning formula

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Jeremy Erwin]

Nazism [... ]place[s] control of private wealth and put it under the control of the government.

That's an odd way of describing the Sho'ah.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[m.ducharme]

Rather than ask you to substantiate your claims that the US government is actually supporting all those dictators you mentioned (which I don't think you can reasonably do), I'm going to ask you this: how is this different from the dictators the US government has always supported (or installed)? Really, your government has a long long history of getting into bed with dictators and fascists. Pot, meet kettle.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Tacvek]

Perhaps the best option for cleaning up the mess, is to get both sides to agree to his return and reinstatement with him immediately (first act upon arrival back in the country) asking the congresses for an amendment with a proper removal system, based on impeachment. (The congress having already agreed with the proposed wording.) Then if the country so desires they can hold impeachment proceedings, and after giving him a chance to defend his actions in the proceedings, remove him or not as appropriate. In any event, he would agree to peacefully step down at the end of his constitutional term.

That would of course require both parties being willing to agree to that. It sounds to me like Congress and the courts, and even the new president might agree to that in order to help suppress any backlash (but no guarantees), but I have no idea if Manuel Zelaya would agree to this. If he really has dictatorial aspirations as some claim, he may not find that reasonable.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[DavidTC]

What sort of moron creates a constitutional system where lawbreaking presidents can't be removed from office via some means? What sort of fuckery is that?

Hell, forget changing the term limits/treason. What if he'd gone out and murdered someone? What do you do then? Arrest him, and watch him order the police to release him? Or watched him continue to operate the government from prison?

Even more surreally, does he have pardon power? The president in the US can pardon anyone, even himself(1), but can't override an impeachment. So without an impeachment process...what happens?

The impeachment concept is designed to keep the country from descending into anarchy if the president turns criminal. So...yeah, guess what happened without such a process?

1) This has never actually happened, but there is no restriction in the Constitution stopping it.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[im_thatoneguy]

Since all of Sweden is by choice more communist that Obama or Ayers... does that mean all Swedes are Evil?

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[The_mad_linguist]

Electronic voting machines aren't really any better than mechanical ones.

You can tamper with mechanical voting machines so they only register votes for one candidate with two minutes and a screwdriver. And the error rate is about 7%.

Basically, all automated voting sucks.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[im_thatoneguy]

When the government can take anything away from you at any time, for any or no reason, that isn't liberty. It isn't freedom. There are no choices. That IS evil.

By that definition everything short of Anarchy is evil.

Parents as a form of governance over their children is evil and children should have free reign to do completely as they please.

What is "yours" is only what is "yours" by government protection and social contract. There is nothing which says my TV is mine. It has no intrinsic ownership beyond what I can defend. As a member of society I get society's protection of what I can reasonably defend as mine. Without government what is mine is only what I can defend personally, pay someone to defend or threaten into defending.

It's a strong government when can enforce contracts. It's a strong government which can keep the people from deciding that you've received an unfair portion of resources. It's a strong government which enables wealth.

If you want complete freedom from government intervention then you also have to learn to live with the fact that there are is no definition of ownership.

Evil is allowing those around you to suffer and die while others live in excess. Evil is manipulating a system in order to economically subjugate those without as much money through your influence.

Communism is Evil. Capitalism is Evil. Socialism is Evil. Anarchy is Evil. Everything is evil. Some things are just more obviously evil. Nobody gets to take the high road.

The United States supported Stalin. He killed more Jews than Hitler. Is the US evil? Nobody is blameless. To admit that isn't weakness it's reality.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[DavidTC]

Unless, of course, the evidence was faked to drive a stake through the heart of any movement to bring Zelaya back as president.

I'm not entirely sure the idea that certified electronic voting results were faked by someone besides the person in power would really help prove the security of electronic voting.

'I don't know about those electronic voting machines, I heard the president of Honduras faked the electronic voting results.'
'Oh, no, it wasn't him, it was some random guys who faked the electronic voting result to frame him. Electronic voting is perfectly secure, because only...um...random people off the street can hack it, not governments.'

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[mrmeval]

I was agreeing with the parent on that one. I have no love of socialism or it's worshipers.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[cojoco]

Sorry, I lost you at "communism is evil".

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure you are completely unaffected by facts, however Chavez won the referendum the second time, after a USA-backed military coup.
In no case was the referendum to make him president for life, as the coup-happy opposition told to western press, but for unlimited reelection, something that exists in many if not most Western countries.
Zelaya tried to do the same, but the oligarchs were more powerful there. Most of the people support both presidents over the oligarchy and would happily give them unlimited reelection powers.
This is what the CIA-backed oil-lords and militaristic nutjobs want to avoid. Unlimited democracy.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Sir_Lewk]

Anyone is free to vote for whoever they want. Now whoever I vote for may not be free to actually accept that position, but that is irrelevant.

I can vote for mickey mouse if I so choose, but in no way is mickey mouse elligible to be president.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

sure it isn't. It is just implemented incorrectly every time...

It is a utopian system that doesn't work in the real world that is full of human flaws.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[phantomfive]

Here is a link to the Constitution. It is extremely ant-dictator, and pro-democracy. Since there doesn't seem to be a translation in English on the internet, I will translate some relevant parts:

Chapter 1 article 2: The sovereignty belongs to the people, from whom emanates all the powers of the state, which are exercised by representation.
Supplanting the popular sovereignty and usurping the constituted powers are considered betrayal of the homeland. The responsibility in that case is imprescriptible [ed. love that prose] and can be alleged by an officer or a petition of any citizen.

Chapter 1 article 3: No one has a duty of obedience to an usurperous government nor to those who take office or public employment by armed force o using means or proceedings that break or ignore what the constitution and laws set forth. The actions performed by such authorities are void. The people has the right to resort to insurrection in defense of the constitutional order.

Chapter 1 article 4: The alternation* in the exercise of the president of the republic is mandatory. Infracting this rule constitutes the crime of betraying the homeland.

Chapter 6 article 239: Any citizen who has served in the office of the Executive Power shall not be President or Vice President.
Whosoever breaks this law or proposes its reform, along with those who support him directly or indirectly, shall immediately cease the service of their respective offices, and for ten years shall remain unable to hold any public office.

Chapter 6 article 240: The following cannot be elected president of the republic: Vice presidents, Secretaries and subsecretaries of state, Members of the national election tribunal, judges and magistrates of the judicial power, ......leaders of the armed forces.....the spouse of the military chiefs......the familia of anyone who might have become president or vice president in the previous election (including second and third cousins).


So the supreme court seems to have acted correctly in removing him from the country. In fact, they gave Zelaya a second chance by initially prohibiting him from trying to hold the election. It seems they would have been in good legal standing already at that point to remove him.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[phantomfive]

Honestly, I don't think the US constitution has an impeachment process clearly laid out either. What if a US president is impeached, but refuses to leave office?What is the process? Our situation would be similar.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[techno-vampire]

I think you're missing my point here. My comment had nothing to do with the security of electronic voting; it had to do with who's responsible for what was found. All we know for certain is that those computers had some faked results on them. We don't know, yet, who did it or why. The ex-president might have had it done to rig the election. The machines might have been planted by his enemies after he was deposed to make sure he wouldn't be called back.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Anonymous Coward]

See, that's one of the problems. Why not love them all, capitalists, socialists, people. Aren't we all in this together and aren't we all out to find a way that will allow us to live in harmony, without the need to kill, exploit or fuck over anyone?

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Sun]

Yes. It's a good thing Israel employs a piece of paper inside an envelop. Don't get me wrong. You can cheat with that as well, but it's much harder, and it's much harder to do that on a large scale. Shachar

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Jeremy Erwin]

The Walt Disney Company has been a American corporate citizen for more than 85 years, far more than the required 35. Why shouldn't it be president? :)

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[shutdown -p now]

It must be a scary world you live in, surrounded by Communist dictators abroad and Communist spies and sympathizers all around you. A newsflash, though: Cold War ended, oh, about 20 years ago?

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[vux984]

What if a US president is impeached, but refuses to leave office?

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and misdemeanors."

Clearly he or she "Shall be removed from Office".

Of course, it doesn't really say:

a) Removed from office by whom EXACTLY?
b) What if they refuse to leave?
c) What if they have support from the group named in part a) above?

Its scary how rapidly you end up with a revolution or coup as the only alternative. Bottom line, if the president decides he's not going to step down, it gets ugly fast. (Because if he thinks he can get away with it, he's probably got someone backing the play... like a big chunk of the armed forces.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Anonymous Coward]

Electronic voting isn't necessary to fake an election win, all you need is FOX NEWS.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[hairyfeet]

That is why the way we had it here in AR the last election was "the best of both worlds". We had the nice easy to read electronic screen, which asked you no less than twice to make sure you had chosen who you wanted, but when you hit yes it printed your vote onto a nice easy to read paper ballot that you could see scroll up beside the screen. When you were done one of the volunteers let you check the paper ballot if you desired and put it in the ballot box. Then according to the volunteer I talked to the electronic vote was captured on this card that reset the machine and the electronic was given to the news for those early election results they love so much. It was nice, neat, fast and orderly.

That said, my two boys are soon to be voting age and nothing I can say can convince them to vote. They just point at how Obama and every other elected official instantly flip flops when the lobbyists break out their checkbooks. Sadly there really isn't an argument I can make for that, because they are right. Hell McCain could have ran against his 2000 self and had nothing in common, thanks to flip flops, and Obama could run in 2012 against the Obama of 08 and not have a single thing to agree on either. I can't really blame those of the younger generations for not voting, because in a way they are right. How can we compete with million dollar checkbooks?

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[khayman80]

I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.

I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.

I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Burz]

I don't know if the Honduran constitution has a mechanism to remove a sitting president from office, but it was pretty clear that he was absolutely on his own.

"On his own" except for a large backing from the populace.

I don't know if their constitution has an impeachment mechanism either, but I do know that any body of law that puts itself beyond even a supermajority vote is an anti-democratic tyranny.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Paua Fritter]

Exile him. Clearly the wisest choice.

Ha ha, except exiling Hondurans is expressly forbidden in their constitution. That in itself says volumes about the golpista's concern for the constitution.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for that link. Very informative.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[makomk]

I'm not sure; those are some suspiciously round figures they're quoting from the results. When someone's faking election results, you generally get a suspicious lack of nice round figures.

I wonder if this is actually testing data...

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Paua Fritter]

This story has certainly crossed the line from possible to being actual ... an actual story that is. In terms of credibility, though, it's about as likely to be real as the "resignation letter" allegedly from Zelaya which the Honduran congress voted to accept, despite it having a strange signature, and being dated a few days previously, at a time when Zelaya was publicly leading a mass delegation to a military base to regain control of voting papers for his consultative poll.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[kisak]

All that disagree with you politically are evil. And the reason they are evil is because mass murders like Hitler and Stalin are evil. Therefore Obama is clearly evil since he wants to make health care affordable.

Your understanding of the world goes beyond good and evil, its just stupid.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[v1]

It kind of sounds like he was trying to hold a rigged election early to save his seat in power by making it look to the people like he was more popular than he was, and that he just didn't pull it off in time. Possibly also that by holding it 'out of season' would make it easier to rig because those that might be in a position to monitor it wouldn't be prepared?

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Martin Blank]

The level of backing from the populace is a matter of some debate. Poll results were erratic, but it seems that his approval rating may have been as low as 26%. The highest support numbers that I've seen have been right around 50% -- a far cry from a supermajority. He may have been elected with such a result, but that doesn't mean that he still has that level of support.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Anonymous Coward]

Chavez never declared himself "president for life" and neither was Zelaya trying to. Chavez, like Zelaya, used the democratic process to change the constitution to remove a term limit, just like many other countries also lack term limits for presidencies. You do not for instance call Nicolas Sarkozy a "president for life", not Gordon Brown nor Angela Merkel, etc..

Why is this clear to 90% of the latin american population, but not to "western" audiences? Could it perhaps be that western mainstream news media provide you with a picture slanted towards "western corporate interests" that are not too happy with the sudden end of the plundering opportunities in latin america?

Note that the previous time left wing governments democratically came to power in Latin America, the US response was swift and clear. And their "solution" I wouldn't exactly call democratic. Latin American people have a vivid recollection of this, it would help if you had too.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[phlinn]

Except that that selfsame constitution explicitly removes the protection of citizenship from anyone who supports the re-election of the president. Article 42.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Alsee]

Why is it suddenly news when I finally get wet?

Because you're posting on Slashdot, and one does not actually get wet when it rains unless one goes outside.

-

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Alsee]

What is "yours" is only what is "yours" by government protection and social contract. There is nothing which says my TV is mine. It has no intrinsic ownership beyond what I can defend.

Right, except copyright. Copyright is intellectual property, it has the word 'property' right there in the name because it is property. You intellected it and you own it. Anyone who infringes it is still a thief because they stole your property from you.

Caution: This post produced in a facility that also processes nuts, and like, other stuff.

-

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[DinDaddy]

It can't fit in the chair in the oval office.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[MrResistor]

There is no junta, and this was not a coup. The Honduran Army was doing its job, as described in the Honduran Constitution, under the orders of the Honduran Supreme Court, which was also doing its job as described in the Honduran Constitution.

In other words, this was a functional system of checks and balances working the way it was designed to. We Americans should be taking notes.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[MrResistor]

"On his own" except for a large backing from the populace.

Really? And what exactly do you base this assessment on? The election results shown on these computers?

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[estel.powell]

Actually Article 239 gives them the right to remove him from power immediately with a constitutional convention. Which is required to extend his term limits, per Chapter 7 of their constitution. My post below, links off to the 1985 constitution and Google translations. In addition there is an article by Octavio Sanchez, Honduras Presidential Adviser 2002-2005. You'll see an independent us countries study which explains chapter 7 briefly. The Congress (123-0) and the Supreme Court (8-1) voted to exile him per their constitutional rights. http://estelpowell.com/word/?tag=honduras

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[eleuthero]

We need a +5 Funny / Insightful mod (or perhaps someone to see the mod history). The parent here is making a tongue in cheek point... or clear through it, as he notes. What surprised and disgusted me (though why it surprised me, I don't know), was that the US government supported the would-be dictator along with Cuba and Venezuela (two countries we are not on good terms with). People I know in Honduras were afraid to go to the election... had been told by presidential supporters that going to it would be considered treasonous after the fact. It is encouraging that more is coming to light.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[eleuthero]

A system that abolishes personal ownership allowing all people to have access to what they need whenever they need it is ideal. When this system is implemented in a resource / infrastructure limited system or in a restrictive / freedom destroying way (as it must be done among human beings), then there are problems.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[bstender]

of course the plotters knew you'd expect statistically likely numbers, so they used numbers that no-one in their right mind would publish so that you were FORCED not only to believe them due to the sheer irrationality of choosing such numbers, and at the same time, to be humbled by their awesome machismo and daring-do.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[corbettw]

Because now the idiots who were claiming that storm clouds don't mean rain have to shut up and realize that, yes, yes they do.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[smittyoneeach]

Your notion of negotiation as a solution is predicated upon respect for the Rule of Law.
Zelaya has already demonstrated that he's willing to make up other rules.
His wad is shot, and he needs to take the loot he's stashed in Switzerland and go work on the memoir.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[smittyoneeach]

We Americans should be taking notes.

A constitutional order requires national
attention. Conspiracies of rascals never
attain comfortable official recognition. Newer
authorities can only require newer.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[notque]

It hasn't crossed the line from possible to actual.

The coup government has been committing human rights violations, and has broken the constitution to takeover the government. It has been killing supporters of the previous government.

And they have found evidence that there was rigging involved!?

The poll there are discussing to change the constitution was a non-binding poll. So we are discussing an opinion poll being rigged. The Coup leaders say an opinion poll was rigged, to justify their coup after it happened.

Complete bullshit. This is propaganda.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[notque]

It wasn't a referenda. It was an opinion poll.

Also, if you want to discuss breaking the constitution, the coup leaders have broken the constitution several times since the coup.

No freedom of speech. Killing protesters. Beating people against the coup.

It is really sick to hear an opinion poll being used to justify a military coup. Completely disgusting.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[notque]

No, it was not treason whatsoever. It was a non-binding opinion poll.

Zeleya did not break the constitution, although the Coup leaders have many times, like killing protesters, curviews, and shutting down all independent media.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[idontgno]

Honestly, I don't think the US constitution has an impeachment process clearly laid out either.

L2ReadTheUSConstitution

Article I, Section 2

Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3

Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party, (defendant), convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

What if a US president is impeached, but refuses to leave office?What is the process? Our situation would be similar.

If he or she is impeached, he or she is still president. Impeachment akin to indictment, which is a formal accusation in a legal forum; it starts a trial process which will convict or acquit. No penalty is enforced, because guilt is still unproven. If, after this, the Senate trial convicts the sitting president (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6), of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" (Article II, Section 4), the maximum penalty is "removal from Office, and disqualification to old any other Office.." (Article I, Section 3, Clause 7).

After that? If the sitting president is subjected to "removal from Office", then he or she is not president any more. They can't refuse to be removed. They are officially no longer president, the normal chain of presidential succession triggers, and the disgraced ex-President slinks off into the history books.

If you've been reading too many cheap drama novels, you can ask "and if some part of the government sides with the ex-President?" Well, civilians who are employees of the government would be possibly subject to discipline, if their "siding with the ex" takes the form of refusing to follow legitimate work directions from lawfully constituted authority. (Perhaps up to firing; who knows, with today's highly unionized federal bureaucracy. At a minimum, you can assume that service at the ol' Social Security office will be a lot slower than usual.)

Any part of the military which declares that it follows the orders of the ex to the exclusion of obeying the lawful Commander-in-Chief is subject to court-martial for such charming offenses as "Disobedience of Lawful Orders" (UCMJ Article 92 and related), or "Mutiny or Sedition" (UCMJ Article 94).

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[phantomfive]

Um, do you have any concept of context at all? This isn't about cheap novels, 'and if some part of the government sides with the ex-president?' that is exactly what has happened here, and what has happened many times in history in central America. You can cite UCMJ or talk about firing people for siding with the ex, but the reality is neither of these is lined out or explained in the constitution of the US. Thus modifying the constitution isn't really a solution, as the GGP suggested, and has been pointed out by another comment.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Wyatt Earp]

US Marshal Service would be tasked with removing the President, Vice president an all civil Officers of the United States in the case of an impeachment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Anonymous Coward]

What sort of argument is this ? "Everybody did something wrong, so everybody's evil" ?

Great way of thinking. Talk about useless platitudes. If you apply the same sort of thinking to opening your front door, you'd starve to death behind the door.

Socialism, whether of the fascist or marxist varieties is evil because it isn't compatible with reality. If history proves one thing, it's that socialism "just doesn't work". it doesn't work in theory. It doesn't work in practice. Hundreds of million dead and thousands of economic papers prove it. That doesn't stop scores of people from trying again.

That's of course the real immoral part. There are only 2 ways to defend socialist policies :
-> plain, blatant egoism, of the populist variety : "sure it'll destroy the economy soon, meaning famine and poverty at best, genocide at worst, but tomorrow I have more money"
-> jealousy "sure it'll destroy me and my family, but it'll destroy those other guys first"

Of course, these motivations are socially unacceptable, so people claim stupidity is stopping them from seeing these things. Frankly, I don't believe them.

Let's take another example : "national health care". Right now, the market is at work. You pay, people try to cure you. The alternative is government health care, which does not make infinite resources available, but it's "free". Which means, plain and simple, that health care is rationed. That some bozo in Washington uses populist reasoning to decide if your life is worth saving or not. And make no mistake, they will have to choose to put one life above another.

So the question of socialist (excuse me ... "national") health care is an extermely simple one : which of these makes a person worthy of health care ?
a) the amount he/she contributes to society, as measured by the amount he/she increases GDP. Imperfectly measured, obviously
b) political lobbying, as measured by a tiny comission of very fallible, very bribeable congressmen

Of course, the world itself is capitalist, in the sence of limited resources and competing intrests. So the market exists whether or not you socialise health care. Of course, the market has different objectives in socialist health care versus in "capitalist" health care

a) capitalist health care : maximise the sum for all health issues of (people_treated * price_to_treat_one) for that particular issue
b) socialist health care : Political expediency (a certain religion considers camel urine a cure for all ailments, after all, a certain paedophilic prophet said so. Said government bases it's legitimacy on said paedophilic religion)

Note that only one of these actually increases the number of people getting treatment. The other does not.

Here's how holland does it : treatments have a cost, and an expected life increase. The state will pay for people under 60 something like $1500 per year of expected life increase. For under 70 $800 per year. Under 80 $400, over 80 : nothing. That's rationing. One of the issues is that once people hit 60, even dead simple basic life-saving treatments like dialisys are denied, resulting in many sudden deaths (and once you hit 80, better hope you never need a flu shot). If your kid has leukemia, there is no way to get treatment. If the docters don't agree that you'll die during childbirth without an epidural, you give birth without epidural (you should hear the screams). Even with these measures, costs are still spiraling out of control (mainly due to the system being trivially easy to exploit by both patients and docters. E.g. methadon treatments to "cure" drug addiction).

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Say that's a nice iphone you have there. I need it, you know, for the "public good". Concretely, the crying sound levels near my congressman's ears will go down considerably, resulting in cheaper health care.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Euhm ... reality is (and will always remain) a resource and infrastructure limited system. Obviously. That's a law of physics.

So your point is, communism is only evil in reality ? Isn't that the same as saying murder isn't evil ? after all it isn't in the afterlife, since you're already dead ...

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Paua Fritter]

... except that the loss of citizenship must be agreed by the executive (the president) after conviction by competent tribunal. Which has not happened - Zelaya remains a citizen (even the de facto president still refers to him as a citizen). So his exile was unconstitutional.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[pudge_confirmer]

Gee, where have you been the past 8 years? do you really think George or Dick would have gone quietly? now that you know some part of what they were doing quietly to subvert the constitution? we are at war buddy, and no impeachment or Senate conviction can overcome the EXECUTIVE's role in our god-blessed U S of A! you expect the attorney general would have removed the shrub? or the fbi? or the army? how is that going to work?

now, Bill, he would have gone. but not even the opposition party was dumb enough to go there.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

We are absolutely not 'in this together'.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming, as most people seem to be, that the find is genuine.

Given that the president has already been "ousted" in constitutionally dubious fashion, what better way to discredit him (after the event) than to conveniently "find" evidence just like this?

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Martin Blank]

It may well have been an opinion poll (I've read that Zelaya changed what he was calling it just days before it was to happen as Congress started to seriously protest that it was illegal), but it was about a referendum to change the constitution. Based on the translation of phantomfive above, Zelaya immediately lost the right to the presidency when he merely proposed the possibility of reforming that part of the Constitution.

Aside from that, how is it a military coup if members of the civilian leadership took control -- with the next in line of presidential succession taking that office -- and the two arrest orders were issued against Zelaya by civilian offices. The Supreme Court issued its arrest warrant directly to the military, which presumably was duty-bound to carry out the warrant. A military coup results in the military taking control. We see this periodically in Thailand and Turkey, where new laws (and occasionally constitutions) are issued from the military high command, and that's not what's happening here.

As for those wounded and killed, when riot-control forces are called out in almost any country, someone gets hurt. It's unfortunate, and if they were targeted or abusive, then the perpetrators should be brought up on charges. Martial law was declared, though, and that frequently means curtailing of rights in just about any country.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Scrameustache]

This isn't a case of "liberty"; this is a case of an elected official subject to term limits who was trying to subvert the constitution so he could extend his term, and although not proven, given his close friendship with Chavez, then declare himself "President for Life". I'm sure the originators of the document didn't include the provision that trying to change term limits for the President was treason on a whim.

Far better, I agree, that Honduras amend their constitution to include an impeachment process. But seriously, isn't "high crimes and misdemeanours" pretty wide in itself?

He was making a referendum about the possibility of changing the constitution, you jump tp "president for life".
Then you suggest that the people who illegally removed him from power should amend the constitution to legitimize what they have done.

Wow.

You'll have to explain to me how their amendment wouldn't be treason.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Anonymous Coward]

Plunder?? This is Honduras we're talking about, right?

The Western media's reaction has been to exclusively portray this as a coup. If there is a lack of understanding, it is of Zelaya's conduct leading to his ouster.

Now, are you seriously trying to compare the US response to this crisis to US policy decades ago? I'd say we'd come out alright on that score. So why aren't you praising us instead of criticizing us?

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[notque]

It may well have been an opinion poll (I've read that Zelaya changed what he was calling it just days before it was to happen as Congress started to seriously protest that it was illegal), but it was about a referendum to change the constitution.

It was an opinion poll asking about if they would want a referendum to change the constitution.

Based on the translation of phantomfive above, Zelaya immediately lost the right to the presidency when he merely proposed the possibility of reforming that part of the Constitution.

I haven't read phantomfive's translation, but I have read the constitution. He did not lose any right to presidency.

Aside from that, how is it a military coup if members of the civilian leadership took control

A segment of civilian leadership aligned with the military leaders to commit the coup. It was a military coup.

200 Honduran soldiers arrived at President Manuel "Mel" Zelaya's residence, reportedly fired four shots, and detained the President.

That's a military coup.

The crisis in Honduras began when the military refused to distribute ballot boxes for the opinion poll in a new Constitution. President Zelaya fired the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Romeo Orlando Vasquez Velasquez, who refused to step down. The heads of all branches of the Honduran armed forces quit in solidarity with Vasquez. Vasquez, however, refused to step down, bolstered by support in Congress and a Supreme Court ruling that reinstated him. Vasquez remains in control of the armed forces.

Vasquez, along with other military leaders, graduated from the United States' infamous School of the Americas (SOA). According to a School of the Americas Watch database compiled from information obtained from the US government, Vasquez studied in the SOA at least twice: once in 1976 and again in 1984.

The head of the Air Force, Gen. Luis Javier Prince Suazo, studied in the School of the Americas in 1996. The Air Force has been a central protagonist in the Honduran crisis. When the military refused to distribute the ballot boxes for the opinion poll, the ballot boxes were stored on an Air Force base until citizens accompanied by Zelaya rescued them. Zelaya reports that after soldiers kidnapped him, they took him to an Air Force base, where he was put on a plane and sent to Costa Rica.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Anonymous Coward]

no it's not. by that defenition, to take away from a citizen, the government must have a very good reason (which is not the same as 'any reason') and go about it through set processes.

stalin killed more jews than hitler only because hitler was stopped. in large part due to stalin. stalin was in fact the lesser evil. remember how many jews hitler wanted to kill? that's right all of them. stalin was a huge evil, this is true. but hitler had the potential to be orders of magnitude greater.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Martin Blank]

It was an opinion poll asking about if they would want a referendum to change the constitution.

The change would have included allowing more than one term for the president. Roughly translated, Article 239 says that any person who has held executive authority may not become President or Designee. An executive that violates this or proposes its reform, as well as those that support it directly or indirectly, will immediately cease the duties of their respective positions, and are disqualified from holding any public office for ten years.

The poll was to determine if there should be a referendum regarding allowing the president to serve more than one term. Zelaya himself has said this on numerous occasions. I don't see how that's not effectively a proposal to change the portion of the constitution which he is not even allowed to discuss changing. Even if that weren't the issue, the law states that no referendum may be held within 180 days of an election, and holding it on election day falls within that +/-180 days.

200 Honduran soldiers arrived at President Manuel "Mel" Zelaya's residence, reportedly fired four shots, and detained the President.

They had an arrest warrant from the Supreme Court. A second one had been filed a day earlier by the attorney general. Both contained similar charges.

The crisis in Honduras began when the military refused to distribute ballot boxes for the opinion poll in a new Constitution.

They were ordered not to by the Supreme Court, which ruled the poll unconstitutional.

President Zelaya fired the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Romeo Orlando Vasquez Velasquez, who refused to step down.

He was reinstated by the Supreme Court, which ruled his firing illegal.

the ballot boxes were stored on an Air Force base until citizens accompanied by Zelaya rescued them.

Citizens who overwhelmingly had nothing to do with the electoral officials, and yet were going to handle all the election activities. This doesn't strike you as problematic?

Your concern over who attended the School of the Americas ignores that Zelaya had been increasingly taking pages out of Hugo Chavez's playbook, who is no paragon of virtue.

Let's leave aside the forced deportation for a moment. Considering that he was pressing ahead with a poll that by all accounts except his was illegal, and that there seems no explicit method of removing the president specified in the Honduran Constitution, how were they supposed to handle it other than by arresting him? He'd already made it clear that he believed he had the mandate of the people behind him and therefore the actions of the Congress (and probably Supreme Court) didn't matter to him. He was going to ignore anything that the Congress and Supreme Court said or did.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Brickwall]

He was making a referendum about the possibility of changing the constitution, you jump tp "president for life".

You did read the words "although not proven" in my original sentence, didn't you?

And PLEASE, stop repeating the canard that he was "illegally" removed from power. As I stated in my original post, you have a President who defies the Supreme Court and Congress, tries to get the head of the Army to do his illegal bidding and when the Army chief refuses, fires him, and then tries to get his supporters to do his illegal bidding. What would he have to do before you removed him from power? Bite the heads off chickens? Shoot people in the back of the head in public?

As I said earlier, putting him in jail risked an armed confrontation between Zelaya's supporters and the police protecting said jail. This would inevitably result in bloodshed on both sides, and could easily foment civil war.

As for your last comment, I doubt you'll understand, but let me try: the current Honduran constitution explicitly states that trying to change the President's term is treason. It is silent on an impeachment process, or trying to add one. So trying to change the former is treason, trying to change the latter is not. I hope that wasn't too difficult for you.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[notque]

The Poll was not illegal though. It was an opinion poll with no legal binding. It was not an illegal poll. There was no justification for the coup.

It was not a referendum.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[FireStormZ]

"Americans were free to elect FDR four times; and the legislatures of the United States are free to change the Constitution to allow future voters to do so. It is not treason to advocate that this be done."

But it is treason to advocate an unconstitutional method to do so. Maybe some folks wanted Bush to have a third term (there have to be a hand full of crackpots out there). If Bush said 'I'm going to hold a referendum to change the constitution on an up or down vote' that would be treason. If the supreme court told him no and he went ahead anyway that would be treason. If he fired a general for not helping him and would not reinstate despite a court order that would be treason.

Honduras just dodged another tin pot dictator and they did it with no violence save ejecting the would be king from the nation.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[FireStormZ]

"Chavez, like Zelaya, used the democratic process to change the constitution to remove a term limit, just like many other countries also lack term limits for presidencies."

'Democratic Process' = Mob rule
'Constitutional Process' = Law

Zelaya was using mob rule and not rule of law to try to hold onto power...

"Why is this clear to 90% of the latin american population, but not to "western" audiences?"

Are you joking? most people in the US would call this a coup, the secretary of state has called it a coup and most Americans done know anything about what precipitated it.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[eleuthero]

Yes, our universe is a limited system (at least, all the evidence points that way and I see no reason to suggest otherwise given my qualifications above).

My point, though, is perhaps better worded as communism only works in a system with virtually unlimited resources--the same is effectively true of capitalism. Both systems require expansion given their human constituency.

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Anonymous Coward]

But then how do you account for the longest ever communist system lasting less than 70 years, and nearly all not lasting 30 years, while there are a few examples of capitalist societies lasting a millenium, and the average capitalist society has lasted well over 200 years (and generally the capitalist trade has survived societal changes, so the average lifetime of capitalist trade is longer than that of the society that's trading) ?

Capitalist demands on the stretchability and/or increase of resources, it seems, are MUCH less than communism's ...

One thing someone should explain to me that given the economic theory on the matter, and the history of communist massacres, what reason anyone could possibly have to even suggest socialist policies might work ? You know, like "our" president does ?

Of course, other than "communism means the state steals money for me (and my cronies) today. And in the long run, well in the long run we're all dead". What motivation, other than the motivation of stolen loot, can one have to believe even in normal socialist policies ? (one wonders especially how people who complain about shortsightedness of past decisions, often wrongly, like the "greens", can suggest socialist policies. Talk about hypocrisy).

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[Alsee]

My earlier post, the one you were replying to, it was a joke. I'm not sure if you caught it, and I'm not sure I'm understanding your post correctly. It's possible there are multiple levels of misunderstanding here.

Say that's a nice iphone you have there. I need it, you know, for the "public good".

I'm uncertain, but it sounds like you're presenting the generic anti-tax argument, it sounds like the argument that taxes are stealing people's iPhones to pay "opublic good" police officers. I know there are Libertarian extremists that use that argument and want to eliminate all public fire departments and eliminate all public police and eliminate all public parks and eliminate all public roads and eliminate all public schools and more, but I don't follow how it connects to my last post.

As I said I could be misreading your post, and you may have misread my post, and I have no idea what is going on.

-

Re:And This Is the Government of a Country

[sribe]

Also, in a coup, the military takes control of the government. In this case, the military appears to be continuing to submit to the authority of the legislative and judicial branches.

Electronic Efficiency

[RichMan]

I can see why the powers that be like the efficiency of a modern electronic voting system.

Clearly we humans don't have to do anything at all. The machines can read our minds and we get 100% voter turnout with guaranteed accurate results ;-)

Re:Electronic Efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

Isaac Asimov wrote a short story on that, it's called "Franchise". Definitely worth reading if you haven't already.

Re:Electronic Efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

Having seen several second life simulators/training sessions, I have to keep asking "Why?"

Simple, it's because of the rape-rooms you fucker.

Thank you, I'll be here all night; try the veal and tip your server!

=Smiegf=

Re:Electronic Efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

Joking aside, the idea that the population is incapable of making the 'right choice' in a democracy has been the most powerful force behind political thinking in the 20's century.

Politicians quickly discovered that giving a clear, rational assessment of a country's problems, and their policies to deal with them, does not get them elected.

So, the solution was to do focus groups to see what policies people will vote for, and split the democratic electoral process from the real business of running the country. When in power, they could carry out their real policies. This is not necessaryly a cynical view, as most politicians genuinely believe that their ideas will be good for the country, if only they could get into power.

The sad thing is, they were completely correct in this assessment. Most people neither understand not care about the real issues and will vote on whoever has the nicest face.

A real eye opener is to watch Adam Curtis' "Century of the Self".

so wait

[Anonymous Coward]

So wait a second. Who certified these election results then? Something smells a little fishy here.

Re:so wait

[julesh]

So wait a second. Who certified these election results then? Something smells a little fishy here.

*Whoosh*.

(And that's the first time I've had cause to say that in response to a top level response... things are getting bad when the ACs are missing the point of the entire story, rather than just somebody's comment on it.)

again, for the morons

[circletimessquare]

and the industry shills who have sold their conscience:

you can screw with paper ballots. but a lot less easily and a lot less slower and with a lot more effort and a lot easier to trace than the effort required to mess with electronic voting

simply for the sake of the integrity of democracy, electronic voting should NEVER happen, in ANY country

do you really need any convincing about what can happen to a country if a vote is put in doubt considering recent events?

not that iran used electronic voting, but imagine how much LESS forensic evidence there would be if iran ever lets anyone independently monitor the results

Re:again, for the morons

[ZyBex]

eVoting CAN and WILL happen. Massively. We just have to work out the details. One way that would work:
- every voter must have its own private key (being done in Portugal/Europe, with the new Citizen Card [I know, you people dislike ID cards])
- voters can then cast a *signed* online vote, and this vote can go to multiple institutions/instances/controllers/sites/etc. Published results should match.
- Voting can be done from home, or with the citizen card (that contains the signature) at the local voting place.

Voting could then be extended to government actions that currently skip the peoples' opinion. Eventually we would see the people voting on a daily basis on the projects they want.

Massive corruption of this system is difficult, possibly impossible, just like breaking a site's SSL.

Re:again, for the morons

[Daimanta]

"you can screw with paper ballots. but a lot less easily and a lot less slower and with a lot more effort and a lot easier to trace than the effort required to mess with electronic voting"

I have actually counted ballots and tampering with them is not at all hard. The fact is that I live in a country that wouldn't stand for this. If there was a government behind it though, fraud is quite easy.

Re:again, for the morons

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.google.com/search?q=ssl+attack

Re:again, for the morons

[rysiek]

I beg to differ.

I see electronic voting as a possible way of getting back to direct democracy. It was possible in Teh Good Ole Days of Teh Greeks, because there weren't many people voting; it was logistically impossible afterwards (too much people would need to voice their opinions at the same issue at the same time), so representative democracy was invented - this way a whole lotta people needed to voice their opinion only once per a few year term, and rest of the decisions were made by the elected few.

Now, we all know how that worked...

Electronic voting (and I mean voting through the Intertubes, not at electronically equipped polling stations) gives us possibility to get back to the root idea. No more "government shills" and the like (it has it's deficiencies too, though - like "idiocracy"). Now, of course it would need a lot of thought to implement it The Right Way - good encryption, paper trail (e.g. "print your vote, sign it and mail it"), etc. But at least gives a hope that guys like sen. Stevens won't get into their warm positions...

Re:again, for the morons

[MrMista_B]

But.... why?

Paper ballots work better.

Not everyone has access to a computer or internet connection.

Paper ballots are cheaper.

Paper ballots are harder to forge.

Paper ballots /work now/, and work well.

Re:again, for the morons

[RichMan]

> Eventually we would see the people voting on a daily basis on the projects they want.

That is the most stupid way to run anything ever known. Even worse than a dictatorship.
The Sheeple are not to be trusted.

As people are finding out as they look closer at Economics. Economics breaks down because it is based on ideal knowledge conditions. Even half baked knowledge conditions do not exist in most cases. Economics fails because purchase decisions are subject to information gaps and information war.

The same can be said of democracies. A function democracy relies on an active educated and wise voter base. Democracies fail because voters are lazy and stupid. Asking a wide population to become educated on all issues and to put aside prejudices and other characterizations and vote in a wise and informed manner is ridiculous. Democracy fails because voter decisions are subject to information gaps and information war as well as apathy and prejudices.

The tyranny of the majority is a problem. But no worse than the apathy and ignorance.

Re:again, for the morons

[RichMan]

The US has a crazy system where they have "embraced" democracy beyond that which is practical. They vote for far to much. They vote for the local sheriff and the local dog catcher. There are pages and pages of things to vote on the US voting system. It is beyond ridiculous to expect any significant percentage of voters to become aware of all the positions that are voted on.

The US has embraced the idea of democracy but failed at the application due to an over application of the idea.
Not quite as bad as the USSR and communism.

Re:again, for the morons

[JohnnyGTO]

I have the perfect system for electronic voting.

All votes are electronically available for audit to anyone. Each vote is encrypted as to the actual voter. Each voter receives an encrypted receipt with their vote with which they could anonymously validate his/her vote via the internet. If enough people say Hey what the!! I didn't vote that way the election is thrown out.

Re:again, for the morons

[JaredOfEuropa]

I have actually counted ballots and tampering with them is not at all hard. The fact is that I live in a country that wouldn't stand for this. If there was a government behind it though, fraud is quite easy.

No.

First of all: how many ballots could you have tampered with anyway? What if you had 20 friends helping in other polling stations? Enough to sway the outcome? I find that very hard to believe.
And if there is large-scale tampering going on by government agents, how likely is it that they are caught out by representatives from other political parties manning the polling stations? Especially if someone suspects tampering and demands a recount.

Our country wouldn't stand for tampering with ballots. But it certainly shouldn't stand for any ballot count done by one institution, without any oversight. And that is effectively what you have with computerised voting. Any half-wit can visually observe paper voting and certify that nothing untoward is going on. But with computer voting, even experts might be hard-pressed that no nefarious bit of code slipped past the overseers.

Re:again, for the morons

[Score Whore]

Err, no. The United States of America votes for a president. That's pretty much it. All other votes are state level or county level. The people in California don't get to vote for the Sheriff of Prince Georges County Virginia. And the people of New York State don't get to vote for the Senator from Idaho.

Re:again, for the morons

[shentino]

How do you preserve anonymity?

Re:again, for the morons

[ZyBex]

Have your read about the SSL attack vectors?

MITM - votes would be cast to multiple destinations, from multiple sources. Vote could consist of a single encrypted packet; what would the MITM do ?

decryption - even if you decrypt as many packets as available, that won't give you the keys to forge a different vote.

SSL lib bugs/design quirks - all known are now fixed

Anyway, I wasn't advocating the specific use of SSL, just private-public key cryptography in general.

The problem with elections is precisely to guarantee that each voter casts a single valid vote, and all votes were legitimately cast by a registered voter. eVoting can EASILY do this, but at a cost that society isn't ready to accept: voter anonymity is lost, since all votes can be traced back to the voter.

Re:again, for the morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you think that some things, like democracy, are so important that we reject any ideas that slightly- or even just perceivably, lessens the security of it?
I want real people, counting real ballot papers with real human observers- no matter how advanced our tech gets. And yes, if that means an extra 20cents on my tax each year, I'll pay it.

Re:again, for the morons

[ZyBex]

You don't.

Re:again, for the morons

[ZyBex]

That's the monarchy argument. People are stupid, so they can't have a say in the matter; and since they don't have to manage things, why educate them at all ?

Have you heard about Direct Democracy ?

Re:again, for the morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Why was the parent modded up? How is voting for the dog catcher harmful? It is far better to elect a dog catcher than to have a mayor give the job to his brother in-law.

Re:again, for the morons

[hawk]

>Err, no. The United States of America votes for a president.

Er, no, we don't.

Polls are to close on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November *for the House of Representatives* (and now, for the Senate as well).

It *happens to be the case* that currently all 50 states use elections on that particular day to choose the states *electors* that choose the president. Most, if not all, list the name of the candidate that the electors have pledged to support instead of or in addition to the names of the electors for whom the voters are voting.

There is absolutely *no* requirement that presidential elections be held in a state. The legislature of a state (not the state government in general, nor the state constitution), for example, could choose to appoint the states' electors itself (this used to be the norm; I don't know when it was last done). Or it could have an election, but do it on another day. In fact, it could do almost anything to choose them that did not discriminate on the basis of national origin, religion, race, or gender.

hawk, esq.

Re:again, for the morons

[hawk]

As people are finding out as they look closer at Economics. Economics breaks down because it is based on ideal knowledge conditions. Even half baked knowledge conditions do not exist in most cases. Economics fails because purchase decisions are subject to information gaps and information war.

Huh?

Perfect information gives perfect markets, but only minimal information required for a market to clear.

Economics hardly "breaks down" or "fails" in the circumstances you describe, although "market failure"--the failure of the market to achieve the optimal price and quantity--occurs. Generally, this occurs in a rather predictable manner.

Even insider information doesn't break down markets, unless it is so prevalent that it keeps a substantial fraction of the people out of the market. Rather, it reallocates the gains (in an unproductive manner, which we also find unfair).

hawk, wearing his economics professor hat for the moment

Re:again, for the morons

[rhakka]

in a situation such as Iran, when the government is not willing to cede power, nothing a voting booth can do will matter. They can say whatever they like, station people in the process any way they like, and whether it's paper or electronic matters not at all. And you cannot even go to publicly verifiable voting because the government will simply threaten and kill those that vote against them.

In a situation more like america's, where we have a long tradition of peaceful transitions of power, we could cede private voting and make electronic voting work. Or keep private voting and keep it on paper. but private electronic voting is far too easy to spoof.

Personally, I think we should go to public, electronic voting. I also think we should have a much more direct participation option as well (i.e. I become my own representative)... which would absolutely require electronic participation.

Re:again, for the morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, let's see here. If you are Al Franken, all you would need is about 20 supporters working in various precincts, tampering with ballots until you have the paper thin 100+ vote margin that he ended up with after his succession of court wins.

Quite simple to sway the outcome, and now we have a monkey who answers to: "The Junior Senator from Minnesota."

Re:again, for the morons

[E 99]

All you need is the right kind of printer to produce a few creates of fraudulent votes in a paper-voting system.

In a secure electronic system, with a proper security protocol, you would need access to a network of supercomputers to crack the encryption algorithm.

The latter is significantly harder.

Re:again, for the morons

[E 99]

Democracy is simply rule by the most effective propagandist.

Re:again, for the morons

[Bartab]

Enough to sway the outcome? I find that very hard to believe.

We just had a Senator seat decided by 225 votes. Could 20 poll counters have swayed the outcome? Yes. Could 255 people of the 5 million in Minnesota have decided to double-vote? Yes.

Simply deciding that votes can't be cheated by small numbers of people is asinine.

Re:again, for the morons

[bkpark]

The US has a crazy system where they have "embraced" democracy beyond that which is practical. They vote for far to much. They vote for the local sheriff and the local dog catcher. There are pages and pages of things to vote on the US voting system. It is beyond ridiculous to expect any significant percentage of voters to become aware of all the positions that are voted on.

Er, what's so wrong about voters voting for local sheriff? Do you want a police force that do not answer to the public at all? Do you want no recourse at all when an innocent man gets beaten up by the police? (Yes, you can demand for an investigation, but guess who does the investigation? Your ultimate power lies in the power to vote the sheriff out and get someone else who can reform the system in, in such cases.)

I do agree that we have far too many things to vote for, especially with things like propositions and measures (at least in California), especially on matters we shouldn't have been bothered with, if we had a few legislators with backbones. But as far as public positions go, I don't think I've seen any position on a ballot that I went and thought "Hey, why do I vote for this position? Couldn't this be some unelected, appointed position instead?"

Re:again, for the morons

[Bartab]

eVoting CAN and WILL happen. Massively. We just have to work out the details.

Simple. Remove secret voting. Then you can vote from anywhere, anytime. Vote from your cellphone on the way to work. Offer Starbucks your vote for a free coffee, vote in front of them, and take your coffee. Simple, actual, democracy is being held up by a stupid pre-occupation with secret voting. Because once it becomes so easy to vote, we will need representatives less and less.

Re:again, for the morons

[Bigjeff5]

You've got it a little mixed up. When we vote for President (and we do vote for president, just not completely directly) we are voting for the makeup of the electoral college. This in no way depends on the -vote- for the house of representatives. The number of representatives to the electoral college that a state recieves depends only on the number of representatives that state has in congress - which is their house of rep + two senators. The minimum is three, there is no maximum but it is around 130 or so, I forget how many representatives california has.

How a state votes in its electoral college members is up to the state, but it is always determined in a way that is linked to a vote of the people at some level. A state could, for example, have the electoral college members be chosen by the state legislature if they wanted. In reality the way it is set up for most states is parties register to the election officials who they will be supporting, and that presidential candidate is put on the ballot. The party who's candidate who gets the most votes then gets to choose who the delegates will be for the electoral college, and the electoral college votes for president. Some states actually split the vote, and each party sends the number of delegates equal to the percentage of the vote they recieved. As far as I know no state deviates from the format any further than this.

Either way, elections are held for president every four years, no matter what system is used. That have made it convenient and use a system that technically is not a direct vote for president does not change the fact that, for all except borderline cases we do, in a practical sense, vote directly for president.

Re:again, for the morons

[ShakaUVM]

First of all: how many ballots could you have tampered with anyway? What if you had 20 friends helping in other polling stations? Enough to sway the outcome? I find that very hard to believe.

*Cough*Al Franken*Cough*

You just keep doing recounts. If your team is willing to break the law and the other team isn't, you can move the vote enough in one direction to overcome a few thousand vote gap.

If you've investigated the matter at all, it's quite obvious he was fraudulently elected. Not fake-fraudlently like what people claim with Bush, but actual fraud. His lawyer he hired for the recount process is known for rigging elections, the statistical likelyhood of every recount moving votes only in his direction is incredibly implausible if true, and the official decisions on the disputed ballots tended only in one way. The local newspaper scanned them and put them online, and the only times the officials disagreed with the general public... was FOR Al Franken.

But since we have a Democrat-controlled government, there won't be an inquest. Just celebration, because they're filabuster-proof.

Re:again, for the morons

[JaredOfEuropa]

All you need is the right kind of printer to produce a few creates of fraudulent votes in a paper-voting system.

Sure. And how are you going to introduce those fake votes into the count? Go vote and dump 500 ballots in the box along with your own? The guys watching the box will see you. Or do it before the polling station opens? The box is inspected by several people, then locked and sealed. And even if you got a bunch of fake ballots into the box, the number of ballots will not match the tally of voters on the check sheet.

In a secure electronic system, with a proper security protocol, you would need access to a network of supercomputers to crack the encryption algorithm. The latter is significantly harder.

Or maybe all it takes is a guy with a USB stick. Or perhaps a fraudulent programmer at Diebold? Do we really know what it takes? No. And we cannot tell simply by watching the machines. That is the whole point I was trying to make.

Re:again, for the morons

[JaredOfEuropa]

In the case of Franken, with which I am not too familiar as I am not a USian, the difference was just 225 votes. Yes, I can see that with such a small difference, influening just a single polling station (or fixing a few recounts) would make a big difference. Then again, with such a small difference, does it really matter that much? (Meaning does it matter who wins; I am not talking about him committing fraud).

What I was talking about is mass fraud, such as seems to be the case with these Honduras voting computers. Mass fraud seems to be easier to commit using voting computers as opposed to paper ballots, and will be a hell of a lot harder to detect.

Re:again, for the morons

[Score Whore]

And what do you think it is that the Electoral College does? I'm putting my money on "votes for a president."

To be completely correct, the United States vote for a president and vice-president and occasionally to ratify amendments to our constitution. None the less you are entirely wrong in disagreeing with me.

If you are truly an attorney, I'd be wary of employing your services as you seem unable to distinguish between something being done and how something is done.

Re:again, for the morons

[polymeris]

They don't even vote for the president. I understand they have this "representative democracy" thingy, where states choose electors as they see fit.

Re:again, for the morons

[Dare nMc]

not sure why it is any difference in the paper world. IE they built a set of fake records that they planned to swap for the real records, at the time of the election, that has worked with paper ballots many times as well. This would work equally well regardless the medium. It is different threats in either world, but we do know from centuries of paper ballots, that no one has come up with a tamper proof paper ballot system that works on a large scale, after centuries of refinements. The same is also true for e-voting, but after 20 years of any effort level.
Paper vs computer balloting would have different strengths, and attack vectors, but saying never e-voting, just because it is not yet implemented correctly is a bit naive.

Re:again, for the morons

[RichMan]

> Er, what's so wrong about voters voting for local sheriff?

Did you look at how they handled personal conflicts with/between their subordinates? Did you evaluate how good they were at managing budget and manpower allocations? Did you evaluate their connections to businesses and other organizations? Did you look at how the managed and achieved short term and long term goals internally and in coordination with other agencies?

In other words did you do a full evaluation of the sheriff as an executive in a management position with an employment record and job evaluation check?

Or did you just vote based on "tough on crime" and other public statements and a short paragraph biography designed not to offend anyone?

You can only vote on the sheriff so often. What happens if you make a mistake? How can you tell? Even in modern times corrupt sheriffs have been voted in and stayed in for some time.

> http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2007/nov/jail-corrupt-sheriff-who-served-senate

Voting does make it correct or you safe.

Also you are depending on a majority to make correct decisions. Time and again it has been shown a majority has no problem stamping on minority. Minorities need protection as well and your way does not guarantee justice for the minority. The southern US did vote to keep Slavery

Having oversight and public reporting makes sure the rules are followed and abuses don't happen. People need to see as much of the government process in public as possible to avoid getting a corrupt system. Then you only have to watch the very top to make sure the full process is open and can be evaluated.

A lot of those Californian proposition and measures were failures because they were not complete enough in evaluating their financial, environmental and social impact. This is an education failure in the election system.

About Bills/Propositions/Measures

Every one should have a one sentence subject. Nothing should be allowed in except for items with address that subject. Exception to omnibus bills which wrap up a whole bunch of things.
And every bill should contain all funding for implementing its issues.

Example: "This bill sets funding for private individuals for the restoration of damages from Hurricane X." Such a bill would not be allowed to contain funding to corporations or to anything in Alaska.
Example: "This bill will establish a state park at XXX". It is expected this will cost $100M a year or $2 per state tax bill. Such funding is part of the bill.

What is needed is a transparent system through the hierarchy then we just need to keep our fingers on the top.

Re:again, for the morons

[Attila Dimedici]

But that was only possible because the election margin was razor thin. One thing that people have to understand is that elections by their very nature have a margin of error. That is no matter how you run an election if the margin between the winner and the loser is less than a certain percentage (I believe I read somewhere that it is 2%), there will be no way to know who really was the winner. This margin of error is the result of the fallibility of people, that is, people make mistakes (they intended to vote for A, but their hand slipped and they voted for B, maybe they notice, maybe they don't). In any election somewhere around 2% of the votes will be miscast (overvote or undervote). If the margin of victory is smaller than this margin, then it is easily possible to tamper with the election to influence the outcome. However, most elections are decided by significantly larger margins. The larger the legitimate margin of victory, the harder it is to tamper with the results so as to change the outcome.
Electronic voting will not change the margin of error in elections, just change the nature of the error.

Re:again, for the morons

[Anonymous Coward]

...There are pages and pages of things to vote on the US voting system. It is beyond ridiculous to expect any significant percentage of voters to become aware of all the positions that are voted on....

Ha ha that reminds me of a local election in which was included the position for supervisor (or whatever) of the local Water & Soil Conservation District. No one ran for the position so the ballot featured a space to write in the desired choice. I'm sure you'll all be pleased to know that "Water" was victorious.

Re:again, for the morons

[Blakey Rat]

That's your state, specifically. Not "the United States." Elections are quite reasonable where I live (also in the US.)

Re:again, for the morons

[DNS-and-BIND]

Which democracy was this that failed?

PS Using a racially tinged term like "sheeple" to refer to your fellow citizens is pretty bad.

Re:again, for the morons

[DavidTC]

More to the point, almost no city has ever had 'dog catcher' as an elected position. It's just an idiotic hypothetical that one city might have had once, and doesn't matter at all.

It's especially implausible now as more and more cities are switching over to system with a much more limited chief executive. Dog catcher, and almost all positions, are indeed appointed, but by the city commissioners.

Hell, cities don't even have 'dog catcher' as a damn appointed position either. The 'Office of Animal Control', to use the correct name, is usually the responsibility of the police or health department or the park and rec, hired by them, and has absolutely no policy making power whatsoever. They just catch the damn animals that people call in.

Re:again, for the morons

[DavidTC]

You're an idiot. You didn't link to a single shred of...well, I would say evidence, but you didn't actually link to anything.

You're lying about his lawyer being 'known' for rigging election, but people should feel free to google who his lawyer is (Marc Elias, but don't trust me either.) and then google what he's known for. (Here's a hint...nothing. Not a single hit on 'rigging' an election, except for stuff about him 'rigging' this one.)

You're an idiot about the 'statistical likelyhood'. Statistics do not work like that. There is no calculable likelihood what several thousands challenged ballots would be.

And you're just plain wrong about the 'local newspaper'. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, who I presume is who you're talking about, indeed scanned the ballets. And the results were...Franken still winning, although by about a third the amount.

Oh, and Franken didn't 'keep doing recounts'. Franken did not ask for the single recount that happened, it was required by law.

He and Coleman then challenged ballots that were not counted, but should be, or vis versa. Every challenged ballot was looked at and decided in court, once.

That was it...the required-by-law recount of all ballots, and a few thousand ballots that both parties had pulled out and said 'Hey, wait, that was a vote for me you didn't count', and 'Hey, that was counted as a vote for him that shouldn't have counted.'. Neither party asked for a 'recount', neither party initiated this, it is part of the process of the required-by-law recount. (And, in fact, the original count.)

This required-by-law recount Franken won, back in January, two months after it started.

Coleman then proceeded to sue and hold the entire thing up for six months.

Re:again, for the morons

[Anonymous Coward]

In Chicago, they can make as many ballots as they need to, to swing the election for any state official. Thanks to the genius of the founding fathers, the electoral college prevents Chicago corruption from bleeding over to the results of Indiana and Wisconsin. They need to have their own corruption, and it has to go the same way or else the corruption is partially self canceling.

Re:again, for the morons

[stephanruby]

eVoting CAN and WILL happen.

eVoting already happens. I vote on American Idol electronically every chance I get. On some occasions, I even vote more than once. At $2 a pop, it's a good way to show that I care about the outcome. I wish every election were done like that on Fox TV.

Re:again, for the morons

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States uses democracy as a means to avoid violent revolution. Quite likely, we vote for things like the sheriff and head of the county school board more than necessary, but that means that, should the holder of one of those tertiary positions turn out to be a fucker, there is already a means in place to peacefully remove them. Without election processes for electing (removing) these low level politicians, the people would have to resort to protracted pressure on secondary office holders (state legislators and governors) or violence to remove them should they become corrupt.

Moreover, around the turn of the last century we learned that even appointed (hired) offices can be made political (with the travesty of city controllers). And don't forget the United States is physically _huge_. The average United States citizen is more greatly affected by state and local officials in their day-to-day lives than by the president or national congress.

Re:again, for the morons

[Anonymous Coward]

I have actually counted ballots and tampering with them is not at all hard. The fact is that I live in a country that wouldn't stand for this. If there was a government behind it though, fraud is quite easy.

No.

Yes.

Large scale manipulation of paper-based elections is not only possible, it happens.

(I will refrain from calling it "fraud", so that I can point out Florida 2000 for those old enough to remember).

What is actually really worrisome about this, is your attitude

And if there is large-scale tampering going on by government agents, how likely is it that they are caught out by representatives from other political parties manning the polling stations? Especially if someone suspects tampering and demands a recount.

Well, perhaps in some countries it would, but in light of Florida 2000, apparently not in the USA.

Re:again, for the morons

[david_thornley]

There was one, count it, one recount. This was of the physical ballots, and was done under close supervision of people appointed by the DFL and Republican parties. That shifted the total by a few hundred from the initial reports, which is in line with shift amounts from previous elections where it didn't matter in the slightest. (Figures for initial reports and final official totals are available for previous Senate elections.)

After that, there was the question of which absentee ballots to count. This was decided by a panel of three judges, and upheld by the five people on the State Supreme Court. (It wasn't trivial, as it turns out the Minnesota absentee ballot system is somewhat flawed.) Of these eight judges, four were appointed by a Republican governor, two by Democrats, and two by Jesse Ventura.

Nor did the additional counts all favor Franken; one favored Coleman.

This was of course conducted under a Republican governor, who followed the process and raised no objections.

Not that this stops right-wing attack idiots (including the editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal) from making things up to throw mud at a very fair election process.

Re:again, for the morons

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC there was once an election in New Zealand where the government got in by one representative, and he got in by one vote...
So the votes can count sometimes :-)
Possibly I am getting the 1957 and 1987 elections mixed up though and it was two incidents.

Re:again, for the morons

[Celandro]

California

Re:again, for the morons

[estel.powell]

Correction, United States is a Republic. Additionally our votes are for our representatives in Congress. They allow us to vote on President to see what their constituents want. They can actually go against the popular vote and vote for someone else for President, but that would be stupid to go against what their people want. Nobody has used the Electoral vote to do this, but they can.

Re:again, for the morons

[ShakaUVM]

>>Oh, and Franken didn't 'keep doing recounts'. Franken did not ask for the single recount that happened, it was required by law.

There were a number of "corrections" that got sent in, and they heavily favored Franken.

As far as the disputed ballots went, I spent a while looking at them online (did you?). The official decision disagreed with what was on the ballot (as by my own judging, and by the general public) almost always only for Franken.

Complaining that I didn't link something? You can use Google as well as anyone and pull up the primary sources for yourself. And there's plenty of articles on the subject to go around - take your pick.

Unlike the Florida 2000 election, this one actually WAS stolen.

Re:again, for the morons

[DavidTC]

There were a number of "corrections" that got sent in, and they heavily favored Franken.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there. There were not 'corrections' 'sent in', whatever that means. There were people from both sides who pointed out questionable ballots they saw during the recount, just like they're supposed to do. Which then ended up in court.

And Franken won more of them. Although, strictly speaking, this was not needed for him to win.

The official decision disagreed with what was on the ballot (as by my own judging, and by the general public) almost always only for Franken.

You're asserting something that should be easily demonstrative with statistics. So where are they?

And even more importantly, Frankin would have won the damn election without 'challenging' a single ballot, you loon. The 'lead' you imagine that Coleman had at some point was due to 1284 uncounted absentee ballots that both campaigns later agreed to count.

Do the math: After the mandatory recount (before any challenges) Coleman lead by 192. Then the challenges added a lot of votes, but let's ignore them. Then 933 absentee ballots, which both sides agreed to count, added 183. Then Coleman initiated, and Franken agreed, to count some more absentee ballot, which added another 87 vote for Franken.

In other words, and this is very very important for you to understand....forget any 'challenged' ballots. If we only count the ballots that both Coleman and Franken agreed to be counted, which they did vote-unseen, Franken still won by 82 votes.

Franken also managed to convince the election panel to add 230 more votes than Coleman convinces them to add, via challenges, but he would have won simply had every legitimate absentee ballot, which both sides agreed on, had been counted. Any imagined Coleman lead was entirely due to the election officials wrongly, according to state law, the court, and both campaigns, discarding some absentee ballots. Everyone agreed to include those ballots, and, once you include them, Franken wins, period, without any challenges at all.

Now, you can indeed make the claim that, had Coleman know what was on those ballots, or had he been in the lead to start with, he wouldn't have agreed to count them. So in some parallel universe where Franken hadn't won more challenges and wasn't ahead at that point, Coleman wouldn't have agreed to count some legit votes, and Coleman would have won.

You're probably right, but that's rather damming of him.

the problem isn't that he is corrupt

[SmallFurryCreature]

The problem is that he is corrupt to the wrong people.

Geez, you got a story here where there just HAPPENED to be found evidence, a long time AFTER the fact, where the finders have every reason to want to find it and weeks of opportunity of "finding" said information. That the finders happen also to be liked by a big northern neighbour with a long history of meddling in its southern countries politics to tune of killing thousands of women and childeren and lots of experience faking, oops I mean, WITH faking in their own elections...

Well, I just don't know who to believe here.

It rather telling the american press is all algainst a corrupt left leader but supported with money and weapons corrupt right wing leaders who killed thousands. It makes me highly doubtfull of any reports about south america.

I think the "true" story here is that this guy got ousted NOT for being corrupt or a crook or faking elections BUT for listening to the wrong people when in power. His replacement ain't any better, but he does listen to the right people.

Re:the problem isn't that he is corrupt

[FlyingSquidStudios]

Last time I checked, Honduras wasn't in South America. Just sayin'...

Re:the problem isn't that he is corrupt

[Nikkos]

"Geez, you got a story here where there just HAPPENED to be found evidence, a long time AFTER the fact, where the finders have every reason to want to find it and weeks of opportunity of "finding" said information. That the finders happen also to be liked by a big northern neighbour with a long history of meddling in its southern countries politics to tune of killing thousands of women and childeren and lots of experience faking, oops I mean, WITH faking in their own elections... " The case could be made that they didn't discover this tampering until they started getting the machines ready for the election for his replacement.

Re:the problem isn't that he is corrupt

[Martin Blank]

That the finders happen also to be liked by a big northern neighbour with a long history of meddling in its southern countries

The leader of that big northern neighbor also immediately denounced the coup, and supported suspending Honduras from the OAS.

Re:the problem isn't that he is corrupt

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you aware that President Obama is on Zelayas side? He's called the "coup" illegal and called for Zelayas to be put back in power the day after it happened.

Re:the problem isn't that he is corrupt

[Attila Dimedici]

The problem is that he is corrupt to the wrong people.

G

It rather telling the american press is all algainst a corrupt left leader but supported with money and weapons corrupt right wing leaders who killed thousands. It makes me highly doubtfull of any reports about south america.

I think the "true" story here is that this guy got ousted NOT for being corrupt or a crook or faking elections BUT for listening to the wrong people when in power. His replacement ain't any better, but he does listen to the right people.

Except for the single small paragraph about this in USA today, I have not heard of any reference to this in the U.S. media. So you might want to think about your interpretation of this event. Another factor you might want to consider is that the U.S. supported the OAS sanctions against Honduras for removing Zelaya from office.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

We can totally trust the military coup that ousted Zelaya to tell us the truth about this...

*chumps*

Re:Wow

[night_flyer]

Military coup under direction of their congress and supreme court becasue the election he was trying to hold was against their constitution... for some reason you like to omit that part

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Why no, that's not what happened. It' surprising you could write this post, since you can't read.

Zelaya's term ended in Nov. No matter what you think of his ideas about amending their constitution to run again, it sure would be a military coup to oust him before his term had even ended.

He had requested and encuesta in changing the constitution, which is a public survey, and provided for by Honduran law.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Chavez? Is that you?

Re:Wow

[ccmay]

Fuck you, Hugo. Death to all collectivists.

Damn, that's efficient!

[Anonymous Coward]

I like this. Let's go a step further and stockpile election results in advance. It'll be just like professional wrestling!

If true

[zogger]

They avoided more serious bloodshed the way they did it. If this is a true fact, and he had remained "in power", he would have beern still able to order around a lot of the military forces who were loyal to him, plus cause mass demonstrations, etc and be able to coordinate it better. Because there is no way he would have gone along with getting impeached.

Even on the surface it was a blatant power grab by him, the entire issue was designed to turn him into el presidente for life. The congress there and the judges ALREADY had told him this wasn't proper nor legal, but he was going aherad with this "vote" scam regardless. So what makes you think he would have gone along with an impeachment? They were under the gun of making a time critical decision, and didn't off the guy or anything, just got him out before the situation got worse. If they hadn't already warned him about it that would be different, but they did warn him before the fact.

Ya, two sucky choices, but I think they chose the lesser of two suckages there.

But all of this is based on "if" and we just don't know the veracity of this latest revelation, but we do know about the power grab he was attempting, sort of like chavez making himself the president (basically and practically)for life "legally".

Term limits are a dang spiffy idea when it comes to politicians, no matter how popular they are, and changing the rules, like he wanted to do with this plebiscite, at the last second, is a serious mistake and transparently was just an effort to accrue more power under some umbrella of it legally happening. The people there had a right wing dictatorship like forever, and a lot of them could plainly see a left wing version now happening, and they just went "no you don't!".

That's how I have read these ongoing events anyway.

Re:If true

[Martin Blank]

Term limits are a spiffy idea when it comes to executives. Legislators are a completely other issue, provided that gerrymandering isn't a significant issue. I would happily have Willie Brown back to lead the California Assembly if the path got rid of the ideologue yahoos in the Legislature right now. I voted in favor of term limits, and now regret doing so more than anything else I've ever supported.

Re:If true

[misexistentialist]

Maybe there are exceptions, but 99.9% of the time term limits would be beneficial. Incumbents are almost never defeated (they and their staff are being paid to campaign after all), and politics is too corrupting to be a career. With shorter terms qualified challengers would have a chance during every election, rather than waiting to run against a bottom-feeding rabble when a seat opens up. It's also ridiculous that we have people leading this country in their 90s, in some cases too sickly to actually show up to vote.

Re:If true

[Martin Blank]

Unfortunately, that's not how term limits work in California. Members of the Assembly can be elected for three two-year terms, and senators can be elected for two four-year terms. But what happens is that they basically flip houses, running the most left-wing or right-wing campaigns possible, promising things that cannot be achieved in the limited terms they have because they're too busy adhering to the platform to compromise with the other party. Under the old system, they knew that incumbents generally were re-elected, and that the people that they saw across the aisle stood a good chance of being there for many years, maybe even decades, and thus had to be treated with some level of respect. It wasn't a great system, but it was a damned sight better than what we have now.

Re:If true

[HornWumpus]

Why?

Now we have gridlock, under the old system we'd already have higher taxes.

I prefer gridlock, the longer it goes on and nothing stops working the sooner people realize just how fucking little the morons do with all that money.

Re:If true

[Martin Blank]

Under the old system, we'd have had people able to better work together, and we would be less likely to have had the stupid budget increases that we've had, because the old Democrats knew that you couldn't always tax your way to your goals, and the old Republicans knew that you couldn't always cut your way to your goals.

Gridlock has its good and bad points. It works well for laws, but not so well when it's the budget that's locked up. I work at (not for) a county government, and I can tell you that this gridlock makes life hell for us, stalling needed upgrade projects (including the replacement of a great deal of EOL equipment) because no money is coming down yet, or because we're not sure if they're going to be "borrowing" from us, reducing expected revenues.

And just in case you wonder, I'm very much behind the Republicans in their refusal to sign off on any additional taxes. I want the Democrats to accept that significant cuts have to be made, and they can play again in a few years when revenues are actually going up. I also support just about any redistricting measure for when the new census results are available.

Computers should be used to count votes

[symbolset]

Once they have been granted suffrage and not before.

Re:Computers should be used to count votes

[Kingrames]

01001001 00100000 01100001 01101101 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01100001 00100000 01101110 01110101 01101101 01100010 01100101 01110010 00101100 00100000 01001001 00100000 01100001 01101101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100110 01110010 01100101 01100101 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101110 00100001

Re:Computers should be used to count votes

[Anonymous Coward]

[Computers should be used to count votes] Once they have been granted suffrage and not before.

They'll just keep writing in the 42nd president, Bill Clinton.

Re:Computers should be used to count votes

[Alsee]

Have you ever watched the typical person trying to use a computer?
I think computers have already been granted as much suffrage as they can handle.

-

Luckily, It can't happen here.

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one, am just happy to know that these crazy foreigners can screw up something as great as electronic voting. At least I can be safe in my assurances that it can't happen in a great democracy like the United States!

Wonder who supplied the Machines?

[s0litaire]

...could it have been "Dieobld" by any chance?

Elections should be seen as fair

[TheLink]

Elections don't just have to be fair, they have to be seen as fair (or at least fair enough). Otherwise they increase the odds of massive riots even if the result was correct.

Electronic voting systems are still opaque to the average person even if they happen to be fair.

In contrast when paper voting is done properly, the various parties can have their representatives observe the whole process of the voting, storage and counting. This is in fact done in many countries. It is not some "theory".

In "notorious" countries typically the "counting" is done behind closed doors, or observers aren't allowed to keep an eye over the ballot boxes. The more a country/gov hides the whole process, the more suspicious it will seem.

With electronic voting systems the counting is effectively done behind closed doors. And if you set things up so that independent and party representatives can observe the counting, the system ends up about as slow as paper voting, just more complex and expensive.

Electronic voting systems are only useful for the wrong reasons.

I have to admit that paper based voting fails if too many of the citizens in your country can't count properly. But by that time you probably have an idiocracy anyway.

Nice biased link in the summary.

[thesolo]

That link to Babula Blog...really, we couldn't find a non-partisan site talking about this event? Instead, we have to read this kind of crap:

The results of this fraudulent vote was tilted heavily in Zelaya's favor, ensuring he could go ahead and illegally change the constitution so he could remain in power for as long as he wanted to. ACORN, I'm sure, is taking notes.

It doesn't matter what Zelaya's politics were, if this is true then he clearly had no problem with electoral fraud. People on both sides of the political spectrum, from the extremists to the moderates, have shown time & time again that they will do whatever they can to stay in power. It is not limited to only the left or only the right, and making silly jabs at the "other" side like that is not only distasteful but juvenile as well.

Re:Nice biased link in the summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

That link to Babula Blog...really, we couldn't find a non-partisan site talking about this event?

You'd prefer a blog whose owner dreams of being sodomized by Fidel Castro while fellating Hugo Chavez?

Re:Nice biased link in the summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep hearing people say this all the time. They have always been people who admit voting for the side that got caught rigging the election.

It doesn't matter. It is still a crime, and mocks my vote.

Re:Nice biased link in the summary.

[bkpark]

That link to Babula Blog...really, we couldn't find a non-partisan site talking about this event? Instead, we have to read this kind of crap:

You are right.

And I hope you complain about the bias again when someone (inevitably) links to a lefty blog that bashes Bush or some other Republican.

If you are just complaining about right-wing biases, you are hiding your own bias behind a mask of "fairness".

Re:Nice biased link in the summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

So why is Obama supporting Zelaya?

Re:Nice biased link in the summary.

[thesolo]

For the record, I've complained the same about links to DailyKos that were completely out of line.

And it was a good rationale...

[raehl]

...when the populace was armed with muskets, and the government was armed with muskets.

Now the populace is armed with, at best, assault rifles, and the government is armed with tanks.

What really keeps the government in check is the right to join the military.

Re:And it was a good rationale...

[JimboFBX]

Militias have anti-tank and anti-helicopter capabilities

Re:And it was a good rationale...

[Frenchman113]

Then they fire a nuke and then you die.

Re:And it was a good rationale...

[Anubis IV]

Not to be contrary...okay, well, I am being contrary...anyway, there is no right to join the military. People get turned down for military service on a routine basis in the US. For instance, I have a friend who was turned away from the Air Force after his asthma became an issue. I think he managed to meet the physical requirements, like the running tests or what have you, but because the asthma could kick in unexpectedly, possibly in a combat situation, he couldn't be counted on to be reliable when things got tense, and so was denied. Obviously, a person could try to hide a handicap or an illness that might make them ineligible for service, but if it's discovered, that person doesn't have an inherent right to be in the military that the Constitution has provided them.

Re:And it was a good rationale...

[physicsphairy]

...when the populace was armed with muskets, and the government was armed with muskets. Now the populace is armed with, at best, assault rifles, and the government is armed with tanks.

(1) When the populace was armed with muskets, the government was armed with artillery cannons, war ships, and every advantage of an experienced and well-trained army. Things are never equitable for revolutionaries, but then their terms for victory do not usually require annihilation of their oppressors, just to make continued oppression an increasingly expensive proposition.

(2) Assault rifles may be ineffective against tanks, but tanks are also ineffective against people with assault rifles. Tanks are very good against infrastructure but in a civil war there is some rather significant overlap between what you consider their infrastructure and what you consider your own infrastructure. Not to mention that if you are transitioning from a democracy or otherwise generally free state your grab at power is going to be quite tenuous if you are not highly discriminate in your retaliation.

(3) Given a little time civilians have many options for responding to tanks. IEDs are quite simple to make, and they may be able to hijack military supplies or find external allies. Look how effective the Afghanis were against the Soviet tanks. Guns, on the other hand, are much more difficult to fabricate, and if already supplied that leaves the civilians with that much more resource to focus elsewhere.

What really keeps the government in check is the right to join the military.

Assuming we're talking about America, the military already has a heavy ideological slant, which is the big reason the counting of military ballots is often a contentious election issue (with the party that is not favored keen on any technicalities which could disqualify those ballots). Of course, I do not see the present ideological slant as representing the slightest danger of empowering a dictator, but the point is that even with the "right to join the military," you do not ensure that the military will have an equitable political makeup. Also, there is no formal "right" to join the military, so even if it's fairly open at present, that could change with time.

Re:And it was a good rationale...

[lwsimon]

Who is "they"? The government lives here, too, you know...

Re:And it was a good rationale...

[lwsimon]

Assuming we're speaking of the American Revolution through the War Between the States, there was nothing preventing private citizens from purchasing cannon or warships. Further, there was no standing army to speak of.

By rights, and as the majority opinion in the recent SCOTUS decision in DC v. Heller states, Americans today should be able to purchase, own, and use today's implements of war - Scalia referred to M16s, derivatives of which are indeed issued to the majority of US troops today. But by the same logic, nothing should prevent a citizen with the means to do so from purchasing an M1 Abrams and driving it around.

Re:And it was a good rationale...

[blueg3]

It's called the Civil War, and the U.S. had a standing army before the 19th century (including the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War). No significant weapons control until the Southern states barred blacks from owning weapons in the antebellum.

Re:And it was a good rationale...

[DavidTC]

But by the same logic, nothing should prevent a citizen with the means to do so from purchasing an M1 Abrams and driving it around.

Erm, except the fact that streets can't support it and it can't maintain the minimum speed required by law in most places. And does not meet various other standards.

Re:And it was a good rationale...

[chill]

Actually, I've seen a few people who own WW2-era tanks. The barrels have been spiked, but they still can maneuver. If the person knew what they were doing, they could put a new barrel on and probably re-arm the thing. It would take a lot of money, and specialized knowhow and equipment, but it could be done.

Many VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) halls have tanks sitting out front.

Re:And it was a good rationale...

[ccmay]

Now the populace is armed with, at best, assault rifles, and the government is armed with tanks. ---

Tank crews have to eat, drink, and piss. That's when they get popped by the militias. Or haven't you been paying attention to Iraq and Afghanistan ?
In a general insurrection, there are enough guns in the USA to supply one to everyone physically capable of using it. Stealth bombers and tanks are useless against those kind of numbers, especially when a significant fraction of them are inclined to join the rebels.

Re:And it was a good rationale...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the US public is armed with API loaded .50cal Sniper Rifles and the knowledge to make devices such as shape charged anti-tank devices.

Trust me .. if it comes down to a tank driving down my street and me and my neighbors .... ... the tank doesn't have a chance.

Don't kid yourself ... the British had serious arms against very simple weapons ...

its not how big your guns are ... its how many you have that matter in the end.

Re:And it was a good rationale...

[SpacePunk]

All tanks, even the most modern tanks are vulnerable to fire. Molotov cocktails, and home made thermite would do wonders.

Re:And it was a good rationale...

[lwsimon]

If you want to be technical, it is usually called the "American Civil War". It was not, however, a civil war at all, as one side of the conflict considered themselves and independent nation. A civil war is a war for control of a government. The Confederacy wanted no part of that government.

Call it an insurrection, and uprising, or a rebellion - but it was not a civil war.

"War Between the States" is pretty neutral, anyhow. I could have called it something like the "War of Northern Aggression", which is actually heard fairly often in the South today.

You're dead-on with the weapons regulations though. Gun control was originally intended to keep guns out of the hands of slaves and freed blacks. That's not strictly in the South either - California was pretty quick to pass a law against carrying loaded weapons after the Black Panthers marched on a courthouse bearing arms.

Re:And it was a good rationale...

[lwsimon]

Somehow, I knew this would come up :)

Typically, people with tracked vehicles use rubberized treads when driving on public roads. They are very expensive, and weight is not an issue with *most* tracked vehicles, as the weight is well distributed.

Re:And it was a good rationale...

[lwsimon]

Except that the guns are breech-loading, and therefore subject to the National Firearms Act of 1934, which heavily restricted breech-loaders over .50"

In 1968, they were banned from importation, and in 1986, the program by which to register them was defunded. So - if you could find a gun that was registered before 1986, buy it, wait 6-8 months for the background check, pay a $200 tax, and install it - sure, you can have a working tank. You'd still be limited to chalk and solid projectiles (and flares), though, unless you paid a $200 per round tax on explosive rounds --- assuming, of course, that registered explosive rounds exist, that the owners would accept the implied liability of selling them to an individual, and you had an approved magazine subject to inspection to store them.

Re:And it was a good rationale...

[JimboFBX]

I think he's been playing too much command and conquer.

Barack Hussein Obama supports Manuel Zelaya.

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in the State Department, and you might be interested in the following bit of "inside" information. Hillary Clinton and the rest of the State Department has concluded that the removal of Manuel Zelaya was legal and that he is a menace to democracy.

However, Barack Hussein Obama disagreed. Naturally, since Clinton works for Obama, she agreed to support Zelaya.

Do not be deceived by the pro-Zelaya statements coming out of the State Department. No one in this department supports Zelaya. He is an anti-democratic thug who has the ambitions of Hugo Chavez.

Re:Barack Hussein Obama supports Manuel Zelaya.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Barack Hussein Obama, and I take issue with this posting. Let there be no mistake about it, there will be an investigation into this matter.

Re:Barack Hussein Obama supports Manuel Zelaya.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've noticed that any time Barry uses the phrase "Let there be no mistake" or "Make no mistake" or similar, it can be roughly translated, "I'm about to tell a huge lie."

Re:Barack Hussein Obama supports Manuel Zelaya.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you Mr Cowardon, that made me laugh pretty damn hard.

Re:Barack Hussein Obama supports Manuel Zelaya.

[ccmay]

Hillary Clinton and the rest of the State Department has concluded that the removal of Manuel Zelaya was legal and that he is a menace to democracy. However, Barack Hussein Obama disagreed. Naturally, since Clinton works for Obama, she agreed to support Zelaya.

---

Well then, it's clear that she's nearly as big a heap of dung as he is. The proper thing would be for her to resign and tell the nation why.

If you really work for State, the same choice may present itself to you someday.

-ccm

THERE WAS NO COUP!

[raehl]

The congress and the supreme court tossed him from office when he violated the constitution. The Army just fulfilled their constitutional duty.

It would be no different than the US Senate convicting a President at trial, and the President refusing to leave office. At that point what the rest of the government is supposed to do is toss him, forcefully, if need be, although in the US it would probably be the Secret Service that did it.

Re:THERE WAS NO COUP!

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The congress decided to voice support for their new masters after the military had already acted on their own to kidnap Zelaya out of his bed at gunpoint. Even then Zelaya was never actually impeached, instead congress accepted the "letter of resignation" the military were kind enough to write on his behalf.

Re:THERE WAS NO COUP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and making all their followers dissappear. That's legal, according Honduras constitution, doesnt it? Removing constitutional liberties, such privacy, home inviolavility, association... that's the way to bring democracy to a country. Honduras constitution was written by the dictatorship rulers just to keep the former privileges, not to give democracy to Honduras. Keep that in mind. It was a consult to decide whether to put an additional voting box to ask about *starting* a new constituent process. Zelaya was unable to be reelected in that election so even the constitution should be written by a different president. 'Having annother Chaves' is the FUD they throwed to make everybody to aggree with them. And those news are more faked that the supposed faked results because the want to gain the support that it is now denied by every other country.

So the people who ousted Zelaya...

[macraig]

... would never plant such evidence to justify their coup, would they now?

Re:So the people who ousted Zelaya...

[shis-ka-bob]

I was wondering that too.

Re:So the people who ousted Zelaya...

[macraig]

Yeah... if one desires to be called a skeptic, it helps to actually think like one, eh? Just too little damned information about this to be certain who's really done what and why. Evidence is so easily manufactured these days, you're either a skeptic or a patsy.

Re:So the people who ousted Zelaya...

[Sir_Lewk]

The people who ousted Zelaya in their "coup" consisted of the rest of the goverment, and were acting lawfully according to their constitution. They already had all the evidence they needed to justify his legal removal from power. This is just another example of how corrupt he was, but by no means the sole justification.

All of this is quite obvious if you actually look into what happened, unless of course you're a Chavez lackey.

Re:So the people who ousted Zelaya...

[macraig]

Well, I just "looked into" what happened. Wikipedia, for one, notes:

"On June 28, 2009, President Zelaya was seized by soldiers, acting on the orders of the Honduran Supreme Court,[42] and taken to an air force base.[43][44] Honduran radio station HRN reported that Zelaya had been sent into exile. He has been taken to Costa Rica, a neutral country.[45] Article 102 of the Honduran Constitution states that no Honduran can be expatriated or handed over to a foreign State. [46][47][48]"

So lemme get this straight: by forcibly shoving Zelaya across the border, the country's own Supreme Court violated the very Constitution they allegedly want to preserve? And there was at least one other obvious Constitutional violation in their handling of this. Who exactly is the bad guy here? It appears to me there might be many more than one... which is, frankly, typical of that region. Even the good guys have blood-stained skeletons in their closets.

Don't go accusing me of being a Wikipedia fanboi, either... I read a Bloomberg article and numerous other commentaries and articles, and came away with the distinct impression that there is more a battle of wills and competing self-interest involved here, rather than an obvious singular Bad Guy.

Re:So the people who ousted Zelaya...

[Kohath]

You're right. Zelaya clearly has an immigration/residency claim. He should pursue that claim if he wants to. He doesn't have a claim to office.

You're basically arguing over procedure, not substance.

Also, the Supreme Court has said it ordered his arrest, not his exile. The court is saying the military exiled Zelaya on their own.

Re:So the people who ousted Zelaya...

[macraig]

You're ignoring the bigger point: there is clearly more than one bad guy in play here, and no one wearing white hats. What I've read thus far doesn't detail any genuine criminal or treasonous actions that Zelaya committed; what I have seen mentioned doesn't even rise to the level of criminality of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and we can't even get those bastards impeached here. Whereas in Honduras, on the other hand, they'll stage a coup because they don't like what the guy had for breakfast. Maybe we should ship Bush and Cheney to Honduras, let these people exact a little frontier justice.

Re:So the people who ousted Zelaya...

[Sir_Lewk]

what I have seen mentioned doesn't even rise to the level of criminality of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and we can't even get those bastards impeached here.

Sounds to me we should be praising them for their effective enforcement of the constitution.

they'll stage a coup because they don't like what the guy had for breakfast.

No. He was in clear violation of their constitution by attempting to effectively dismantle democratic rule. That is not a trivial matter.

Re:So the people who ousted Zelaya...

[macraig]

Sorry, could you point out specifically where he did that? I must have missed something, because that didn't come up in anything I read. He wanted to have a referendum to debate changes to the Constitution, and asked that the voice of the people be heard on the matter. That doesn't sound like "dismantling democratic rule" to me. There were ACCUSATIONS that he wanted to specifically try to change the section that would allow him to be reelected, but that reelection would still require the assent of the citizens, wouldn't it? If, during a referendum, it was clear that citizens wanted a change to term limits, who the fuck are these other people in the courts and the military to stand in the way of that and say no, and then carry it a step further and stage a coup, exile the President, and then say it was all done for the good of the people and saving the Constitution?

I call bullshit on this whole thing.

Re:So the people who ousted Zelaya...

[Anonymous Coward]

Leave it to a Bush hater to support a wanna be Chavez.

Re:So the people who ousted Zelaya...

[tibman]

You're not seeing the whole thing yet. He DID setup a vote to redo the constitution, it looks like that whole vote was rigged. He was arrested two days before the vote was supposed to take place. The vote to redo the constitution was illegal, how does a president say "Hey guys, we're all going to vote on 28 June to completely rewrite the constitution from scratch." The citizens had no part in this decision to vote, but they were supposed to participate in it (although it now appears to have been rigged).

After he was physically removed from office by order of the Supreme Court and Supported by the Military, his immediate successor was sworn in as president. The new president was the previous speaker of parliament and was next in line for the presidency should anything happen to Zelaya. The government did the RIGHT thing by protecting the Constitution. Zelaya could not justify a rewrite of the constitution and had no right to call for a vote on one.

If the vote was legit, i think there wouldn't be as much of a problem. But it was rushed and legally dubious. The fact that there is evidence now of a rigged vote makes Zelayas return nearly impossible (imo!).

Re:So the people who ousted Zelaya...

[DavidTC]

He wanted to have a referendum to debate changes to the Constitution, and asked that the voice of the people be heard on the matter. That doesn't sound like "dismantling democratic rule" to me.

The Constitution on Honduras specifically makes it punishable by removal from office to discuss such a change. Not make such a change, not attempt to make such a change, but even to discuss attempting to make such a change.

They take their term limits incredibly fucking serious. Sounds crazy, I know, but it is the damn law.

They sat down and wrote, in their constitution, a part that not only can they not change (Which isn't that weird, we have a part we can't change...in ours we can't make slavery illegal, even via constitutional amendment, before 1808. Although obviously that is moot now.), but they can't even talk about changing or they're barred from any public office for the next decade, and removed if they're in it. It's not some weird accident, it's not some strange overlap of laws, it's not some court decision, it's an actual damn constitutional principle specifically put there, that exactly matches what he attempted to do.

Think of it, if you will, as our third amendment. It seems damn stupid and pointless, it's only be used in half a dozen court decisions in the entire history of this country, but it indeed is actually there and fairly explicit.

Oh, and this vote only became a 'discussion' or 'poll' after people starting, you know, trying to arrest him for it. (Although that's still illegal.) It was, in fact, a constitutional referendum to attempt to illegally change the Constitution. It became a 'poll' rather suddenly after the courts ruled against him and ordered him out of office.

Re:So the people who ousted Zelaya...

[macraig]

How do you know so much about who Zelaya wants to be? Who are you to say that I "hate" a man I've never even met? Perhaps I should ask you: do you "hate" everyone with whom you disagree about ideology?

Don't actually answer; the questions were rhetorical. You already answered them when you presumed I would think and behave exactly as you do, and then told me how you'd think and act.

Re:So the people who ousted Zelaya...

[macraig]

I suggest that you read the post "I am a Honduran citizen" elsewhere in the replies here (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1307779&cid=28752917). Since he actually lives in Honduras (at least so he says), he is qualified to give a much more accurate account of it than any of us outsiders.

As it so happens, though, his account justifies my skepticism.

Re:So the people who ousted Zelaya...

[macraig]

I think indeed I'm seeing the whole thing a bit better than most. I suggest that you read the post "I am a Honduran citizen" elsewhere in the replies here (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1307779&cid=28752917). Since he actually lives in Honduras (at least so he says), he is qualified to give a much more accurate account of it than any of us outsiders.

As it so happens, though, his account justifies my skepticism.

Re:So the people who ousted Zelaya...

[SteelAngel]

All of this is quite obvious if you actually look into what happened, unless of course you're a Chavez lackey.

Or a complete idiot. Unfortunately there's way too many people who put their blinkers on and can't understand how legal systems work. This is especially true amongst the faux-liberals who think that every legal system is exactly like the US ("They can't exile a -president-!!@# That's illegal!!!!#!@111") or who will go to bat to defend an elected leader's power grab to dictatorhood while being virulently anti-Bush ("Bushitler's going to take over the gubment pemanently!!11!! Darth Cheney!!@111!!! Yay Chavez and Ahmadinejad!!)

There was nothing 'coup-like' about the Honduran reaction to Zelaya's power-grab. The only people who still buy into that meme are retards (or the mainstream media, or Obama's government).

Re:So the people who ousted Zelaya...

[DavidTC]

Since he actually lives in Honduras (at least so he says), he is qualified to give a much more accurate account of it than any of us outsiders.

Not really. It actually makes him her more likely to be partisan. Go ask people about the 2000 US election and how fair it was.

Oh, sure, he says he's not partisan, but at this point, we're taking a lot of faith.

And he's repeating the talking point that Honduras has 'no way to remove a president'. There might be no codified way to do that, but the writers of the constitution clearly expected it was possible because they put in a specific law that removes people from public office if they do a specific thing...which Zelaya did!

So removing a president from office in Honduras is akin to calling a Constitutional convention in the US...we're not really sure how it works, and if it ever happened they'd be a lot of questions...but it's not a damn 'coup' if the entire rest of the government and the guy's own party are in agreement with said removal. Without a codified removal process, they decided to have both Congress and the Supreme Court vote on it, which sounds entirely reasonable to me. (It's more than our impeachment requires.)

And, yes, the people removing him broke the rules also, and Zelaya has a residency claim and a lawsuit against the military for kidnapping him and throwing him out of the country. That was entirely improper...but it still doesn't make him the damn president.

Attempt to change or even discuss changing the term limits of the office, you're removed from it. That is the damn rule, and I can read and understand it perfectly fine. The fact no one bothered to write down how to demonstrate that the president had done so, and thus the proper process for removal, is annoying, but does not mean that he can't actually be removed, it just means the the first time is going to be...bumpy.

Granted, all this could be lies and it was a military coup and the military is holding everyone else in the government at gunpoint and making them lie...but it's a rather surreal military coup if so. (Why not just hold Zelaya at gunpoint also?)

Just because the military was involved in the removal from office does not make it a military coup. The US has very specific laws against the military being involved in law enforcement, so if a president here ever refused to leave office and the rest of the government had to remove him by force, we would not use them, we'd use the secret service...and it would not be a 'Secret Service Coup', either. But Honduras is not the US, and probably does not have a law like the Posse Comitatus act.

Tampering before or after?

[gmuslera]

You can use them to falsify election results, or justify why you ousted that president. Once you can't trust in what is stored in those computers, both alternatives are valid.

Hondurans demonstrate they are a democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is why this story is important: Zelaya fought for a reelection referendum in spite of a ruling by the Honduran Supreme court. He was going against their constitution, then was purchasing voting machines from Chavez for this special election. Before these special elections could be held though, the military did pull a coup but then they gave it back to the people - just as democracy should work. Cool no? Now, word is coming out that these voting machines had results already "preloaded". Once these facts are verified, Zelaya will be judged for what he is/ is not. Bigger yet, if Chavez is seen as the source of these machines and implicated, then what standing would he have with the Venezuelan populace? Now is the chance for conspiracy theorists to come back that this is a secret plan of the US govt. to oust both Zelaya and Chavez but come on, has the US been that clever in its dealings with south america? Stay tuned

Unreliable

[trendzetter]

Seems to be a propaganda stunt by the coup regime. These kind of "relevations" could be used to discredit there opponent. It's the same juristic system that ordered the military to commit a coup that discovered these material and informed media that favor them. Remember that an army that is not loyal to Zelaya is supervising elections in Honduras?

Re:Unreliable

[Anonymous Coward]

a) if the courts legally decree it to be done, it's not a coup, it's an impeachment. b) It's the first army in South America to throw out a strongman and not replace him with another strongman. c) you're repeating Chavez word for word. You are, therefore, presumed to be a lying, manipulative fuck

No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle?

[Nicolas MONNET]

The ~referendum that Zelaya was planning might well have been unconstitutionnal, but he didn't get to do it. Hence he did not break the constitution. Therefore the coup cannot begin to be justified by this stupid talking point.

But anyway, there is very good precedent for that kind of thing. De Gaulle ran a referendum in 1958 that gave birth to what we call the Vth Republic, a major change in the type of government (from parliamentary to mostly presidential).There was no provision for this kind of change in the IVth Republic's constitution, therefore it was unconstitutionnal stricto sensu. But constitutionnalists agree that the will of the people takes precedence over the letter of the constitution, esp. when such a vote is won with as significant margin as it was.

Opponents didn't spare the General and called him a dictator. He replied back with a question, "if you look back at what I have done and how I've fought tyranny, do I look like a dictator? And would I begin such a carreer at my age?"

But don't let history get in the way of your rightard talking points. I just want to point out that your ugly type is not in power anymore, at least in the US. (Unfortunately, we have inherited the Bush Jr's diminutive love slave in the mean time)

Re:No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle?

[Red Alastor]

The ~referendum that Zelaya was planning might well have been unconstitutionnal, but he didn't get to do it. Hence he did not break the constitution. Therefore the coup cannot begin to be justified by this stupid talking point.

Yes he did. If you read their constitution, you'll see that there's a section that cannot be changed or amended about the president serving only one term (too many dictator presidents clinging to power) and that it's even illegal for a government official to talk about changing it. According to the constitution, that person would lose his position and be barred from the government altogether for a period of 10 years.

Therefore, he did break the constitution and the moment he did so, wasn't president anymore.

Re:No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle?

[phantomfive]

Wow, so what you are advocating is that he be allowed to break the law, break the constitution, because a French guy did it? Furthermore, you get mad when the legislature breaks the constitution, but not the president? Finally, you finish your astoundingly bad argument with a completely unrelated shot at Obama, calling him Bush's diminutive love slave? This is the most idiotic post I've seen modded up in a long time.

The Hondurans are somewhat divided on whether it was a good idea to oust Zelaya, but there is one thing they are united on: they don't want a return to the pre-1980s style dictatorships. They are only divided on how best to achieve that, but it's pretty hard for anyone to argue that Zelaya doesn't want to set himself up as dictator for life.

Re:No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle?

[techno-vampire]

Hence he did not break the constitution.

AIUI, their constitution not only forbids removing the term limits, it specifies that any elected official who submits a bill to chage the constitution in that way be removed from office. If so, Zelaya had, in fact, violated their constitution and was properly removed from office.

Re:No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, you finish your astoundingly bad argument with a completely unrelated shot at Obama, calling him Bush's diminutive love slave? This is the most idiotic post I've seen modded up in a long time.

Out froggy friend above is referring to Nicholas Sarkozy not Barack Obama. At 6' 1-1/2" Obama is hardly diminutive.

Re:No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ~referendum that Zelaya was planning might well have been unconstitutionnal, but he didn't get to do it. Hence he did not break the constitution. Therefore the coup cannot begin to be justified by this stupid talking point. .... But don't let history get in the way of your rightard talking points.

Few better quotes than this to show why the 'left' is evil and morally corrupt. Unless you're a "rightard" in today's society, there is something seriously wrong in your head.

Re:No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Therefore, he did break the constitution and the moment he did so, wasn't president anymore.

While I'm not familiar with the details of Honduran law, in general, there's this thing called due process: that a person has a right to defend themselves in a public trial. That's not to say that the (former) Honduran president is innocent - just that the matter isn't quite as clear cut as you indicate (i.e. where was the public trial that proved to an impartial jury that the president was guily?).

FWIW, the consensus among international leaders (including the USA's Obama) is that the Honduran president's removal was not carried out in accordance with the rule of law.

Re:No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ~referendum that Zelaya was planning might well have been unconstitutionnal, but he didn't get to do it. Hence he did not break the constitution.

As I understand it, the Honduran constitution specifies that even attempting to hold the "referendum", which he clearly attempted, is a violation and grounds for immediate removal from office. Just because the US requires impeachment proceedings doesn't mean Honduras does.

Re:No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle?

[I'm just joshin]

Nico,

    Why did you feel the need resort to personal insults rather than just arguing your point? Is this a normal facet of your personality or you hiding behind the bravado of Internet anonymity? I'd recommend highly that you figure out a way to let go of your rage and focus on more productive pursuits. Posting these "scathing" responses on Slashdot does not help convince those with opposing beliefs but instead steels them against conversion to your views.

    As to your example of De Gaulle, I had never before thought of France as a third world nation. You have convinced me. Thank you.

-J

Re:No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle?

[physicsphairy]

The ~referendum that Zelaya was planning might well have been unconstitutionnal, but he didn't get to do it. Hence he did not break the constitution.

The Honduran Constitution prohibits the consideration of any amendments aimed at changing terms or eliminating term limits. In effect, by advocating and campaigning on that topic, Zelaya was violating the constitution in his capacity as president.

Not to mention that Zelaya sacked the head of the military for refusing to carry out his illegal referendum, and then tried to have his supporters carry it out on their own contrary to the declarations of Hondura's congress and supreme court, leading a mob to break in and steal the necessary ballots which he had had sent by none other than Hugo Chavez.

And now we see why he was eager to carry it out despite its illegality and his having become rather unpopular--it was always going to be cooked in his favor.

Personally, I don't see how the removal of the president by the congress and the supreme court for his illegal actions and temporary replacement by an elected official from the same party, with no alteration to plans to hold the upcoming election, can be considered a "coup." It didn't change the political landscape at all. It just kept one power hungry president from fraudulently creating a permanent throne for himself.

Re:No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle?

[gilbert644]

I see you missed the part were he was found guilty by the supreme court of Honduras.

Re:No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you missed the part were he was found guilty by the supreme court of Honduras.

Ah, but was there due process? Was there a public trial where he had an opportunity to present his side of the story to an impartial jury?

Maybe you missed the part where there are all kinds of "Supreme Courts" around the world that don't meet the standards of due process.

Re:No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill all the fucking lawyers

Re:No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle?

[ccmay]

Criminal law is not the same thing as political process. What a ridiculous argument.

Re:No, that's bullshit, ever heard of De Gaulle?

[Paua Fritter]

AIUI, their constitution not only forbids removing the term limits, it specifies that any elected official who submits a bill to chage the constitution in that way be removed from office. If so, Zelaya had, in fact, violated their constitution and was properly removed from office.

If indeed that was what he'd done, then it could indeed have been legal to remove him from office. But that was not what he did, and the maneuvres against him were in fact manifestly illegal.

The coup was of course presented as legal by those who perpetrated it and now constitute the new de facto government (surprise surprise), but no other government anywhere has recognised the coup as a legal process. Not one. The coup d'etat has been condemned by the UN general assembly, the Organization of American States, the UNASUR, the US, the EU, etc, etc. Don't be fooled into thinking that the Honduran judicial system is some high-minded and independent branch of government. Honduras is a banana republic and has a thoroughly militarized and corrupt political system.

The new regime has tried (with some success, in the US at least) to put forward a cover story in which Mel Zelaya was unconstitutionally attempting to seek reelection and was impeached and removed legally. The tame MSM in Honduras has by and large gone along with the story (any media which haven't have been shut down by military force). But in fact Zelaya has always denied that he wanted to seek reelection. The right wing all say it was "common knowledge" he wanted to establish a "Chavista dictatorship", but this is just what they want to think: there's no actual evidence for it.

The poll which Zelaya attempted to hold was not an official referendum, in fact, but simply a public opinion poll with no official status. The constitution explicitly guarantees the right to hold such polls, by the way.

The poll merely asked Hondurans if they agreed that at the upcoming elections, there should be a "fourth ballot box" installed (i.e. alongside the 3 votes for president, congressional and municipal representatives), where voters could decide if there should be a national consitutional assembly to approve a new consitution. It did not ask what provisions any new constitution should contain. It certainly made no mention of term limits. In fact, even if the opinion poll had taken place, and if the result had favoured a "fourth ballot box", then Zelaya would've had his hands full ensuring that the ballot box actually was installed. If it were installed, and if the voters approved the idea of a constituent assembly, then there would have to have been further elections for the constituent assembly itself, then the assembly would've had to approve a new constitution. At that final point, the hypothetical assembly might hypothetically decide to remove some of the provisions which are "cast in stone" in the current constitution, and they might have run into legal trouble in so doing. But this is all "what-if" stuff ... Zelaya himself was a long way from breaking the constitution - he didn't even get a chance to do so.

All according to the constitution

[iYk6]

Any government process that features the army forcing a president out on a plane in his pajamas is at least as unacceptable as a crooked election keeping one in power.

That's pretty much what they did according to their own constitution.

That is one funky constitution.

No he HAD NOT

[Nicolas MONNET]

He was planning a contitutional change that the judges thought was unconstitutional, but since he hadn't even done the referendum, there was no basis for removing it at that point, if there were to be any to begin with.

Re:No he HAD NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Article 239 -- No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.

Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

He proposed its reform, which means there WAS a basis for removing him.

Re:No he HAD NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off Chavez lackey.

Re:No he HAD NOT

[nbates]

It is a stupid law that it is bound to be broken.

You can't legislate that a law can't be "proposed to be reformed". It is against the essence of democracy.

Does this law mean that every person in Honduras who would have voted for a reform is now "unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years"?

I mean, according to your logic, the military will now be able to remove from power any person who was seen in a pro-reform raid.

Re:No he HAD NOT

[digitalchinky]

I'm not sure it is the law that is 'stupid' here good sir.

An entire country decided this was a good thing to make permanent. It's their playpen, their choice.

Anyone already in office, attempting to change this permanent legislation, gets the boot for 10 years. Simple right? (At least one would think this is simple enough language) So no, this law does NOT mean that any average jane or joe thinking about becoming president would be unable to hold office. If they gain office and then try to make those changes, obviously the law is clear. They get their arse kicked to the curb for 10 years.

Pretty fair if you ask me - keep the bastards as honest as you can by handing out eviction notices every 4 years, an enforced fresh outlook if you will.

Re:No he HAD NOT

[DavidTC]

Yes, it is a stupid law. And, yes, anyone who supported changing it can be barred from office from ten years.

That, however, does not make removing presidents who break it a 'coup'.

Re:No he HAD NOT

[nbates]

"An entire country decided this was a good thing to make permanent. It's their playpen, their choice."

You forgot the "Once"... "Once, an entire country decided this was a good thing to make permanent. It's their playpen, their choice."

What kind of stupidity is making a law and forcing future generations to obey it. You are basically denying a say to future generations.

I understand you sympathize with that law, but I don't think it is fair to force a law in this way. It is not moral since it denies the chance of dialog and evolution in culture.

If people wants to change a law, so be it. Times change.

Re:No he HAD NOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time learn the facts. He proposed having a non-binding referendum to see if there was popular support for having a binding vote in november, concurrent with the presidential election, on whether to assemble a national constituyent committee to look into writing a new constitution. So he didn't propose reform, he proposed asking people if they would like to ask people if they'd like reform.

Re:No he HAD NOT

[digitalchinky]

Understood. Good points. Some of these things probably should have a review period from time to time, but in contrast, say there are laws governing freedoms - things like freedom of or from religion, should we allow those to be reviewed from time to time too?

Times most certainly do change.

Re:No he HAD NOT

[nbates]

I think most democracies allow revision of all its laws. Not force it, but just leave the door open to it.

This is the first time I hear about a "self perpetuating law". And the fact that this comes from a Latin American country is no surprise (I'm from Argentina).

Re:No he HAD NOT

[david_thornley]

Check the US Constitution. There was a section about allowing any person into the country until 1808 that had special protection. (I believe this was to protect the slave trade for several years, and that was considered necessary to get the Constitution ratified.) Of course, that provision has long since become irrelevant.

Or... the coup plotters are lying

[ourcraft]

Having shot people suspended liberties, imposed curfews and deposed an elected president, they couldn't possibly be lying -- really they would lie? And why would someone want to rig an election that was announced as not having the force of anything but advice? It was a vote about a "recommendation." Not a referendum that has the force of law like California. Of course, making talking about changing the law illegal surely doesn't say anything about the level of democracy allowed by the elites. Sorry this sounds like justification after the fact, for world denounced anti-democrats staging a military coup. Honduras =Iran

Re:Or... the coup plotters are lying

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, making talking about changing the law illegal surely doesn't say anything about the level of democracy allowed

It's not illegal, you just have to step down from your office for 10 years once you've floated the idea. That prevents people from trying to vote themselves power. Shame that we couldn't have done the same here for congress critters that vote themselves raises.

Now, for some random loser civilian like Zelaya, to attempt to take over the military is illegal.

Incorrections

[Anonymous Coward]

First, Europapress is not a newspaper, it's a newsagency. Also, it's a spanish agency, not catalan, it's headquarters are located in Madrid, not in Barcelona. Also the reports speaks that they do contain records of the ballot count of a voting that never took place.

Check the machines for tachyon emissions...

[stilltron]

I'm betting they're prolly just from the future.

Chances it was test data?

[BoneFlower]

Basic procedure for building important databases and data processing apps, is to fill it with test data. Some realistic, some not realistic, and some that should be impossible. See what happens before the system goes live.

I'm not seeing anything in this report that conclusively rules out the possibility this is test data. Though, I suppose something might have gotten lost in translation.

Re:Chances it was test data?

[makomk]

Yep, seems likely. The nice round numbers are fishy; people doing test data would do that because it's not meant to look plausible, but election riggers avoid them.

Propaganda Yourself

[Ironsides]

a military coup unofficially supported by the US,

US manufactured, voting machines

Interesting how you state two things here with no proof. Nor are either of these in any of the articles and the only one who has said it was "unofficially supported by the US" has been Hugo Chavez. Further, US President Obama has condemned the coup. Oh, and it didn't say that they were voting machines, either.

Re:Propaganda Yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

And Obama has done exactly what about the coup? It's easy to say the words, but it's actions that really tell the truth. We talk about freedom and democracy, but we, or at least our elected representatives, still call Saudi Arabia a "friend"; and human rights abuses are seldom allowed to interfere with making a profit...

I'm not going to defend Chavez or his cronies, but that doesn't mean we in the west, for want of a better word, haven't been up to our usual dirty tricks.

Re:Propaganda Yourself

[bkpark]

I'm not going to defend Chavez or his cronies, but that doesn't mean we in the west, for want of a better word, haven't been up to our usual dirty tricks.

And I'm not going to accuse an innocent man of murder, but it doesn't mean you in your home, for want of a better word, have no skeletons in your closet.

So far, we have no direct evidence pointing to anyone in the West. Heck, not even indirect evidence, save for the word of a man who is decided anti-West and anti-US. In the absence of any evidence, only a truther would go out to accuse U.S. of wrongdoing.

Re:Propaganda Yourself

[hey!]

It's easy to say the words, but it's actions that really tell the truth.

No, words can sometimes tell the truth and actions, insofar as they are intended to convey meaning, can sometimes be lies.

Yes, talk can be cheap. But so can actions be, when others pay the price.

Re:Propaganda Yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

US President Obama has condemned the coup...

*gasp*

Let's all fall over flat on our faces and believe every word that is said by a politician.

Not saying that wasn't truth, but c'mon... he's a politician first and foremost. AKA - He's a liar and a cheat, just like the rest of them. This isn't news, and it's not any different for "The One".

Re:Propaganda Yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Your country backed the Venezuelan coup, recognizing the traitors immediately, only stepping down when most of the military showed support for Chavez. Usual suspects.
Obama might not be Bush, but the CIA is the CIA. And a war criminal like Kissinger is a hero there.

Re:Propaganda Yourself

[gnarvaez]

actually, while it is true that the US has condemned the coup, the US' State Dept. personnel in Latin America often seem to operate with a mind of its own. It is possible that there was a difference of opinion with the people on the ground and Washington. Many of the people in Latin America came to their jobs in the waning days of the Cold War and considered their mission to contain and prevent another Nicaragua/Cuba or the victory of the Guatemala and Salvadorean guerilla (of course, Chavez is the new Devil and he has been used effectively to mobilize opposition against many of the "new left" governments in the region. For many of the US State Dept. personnel, and for much of the Honduran elite, they are still fighting against communism (now reincarnated in Chavez) and believe that having a strong tie with the military and the "trustworthy" business elite is the best way to prevent this from happening. I would not be surprised if in the corridors of the different embassies and at Foggy Bottom the comments are along the lines of "Obama is new to this, soon he will realize who are the real friends of the US..."

How do we know the fake results aren't fake?

[Joce640k]

Maybe this whole thing is a fabrication to make the ousted president look even more corrupt than he really was?

Re:How do we know the fake results aren't fake?

[rs79]

" Maybe this whole thing is a fabrication to make the ousted president look even more corrupt than he really was? "

Gosh. Who would do a thing like *that* ?

They are just so stupid

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The best way to steal an election efficiently is to get 5 out of 9 votes that matter. Rest of the votes do not count.

Re:They are just so stupid

[bkpark]

Here, if it was Zelaya doing it (so far, we don't have any concrete evidence to point to who's responsible), he needed an overwhelming support. Remember he keeps repeating that this was nonbinding, i.e. for gathering the opinion of the people. If even a significant minority was opposed to the repeal of term limit, then he couldn't push through the constitution change. He needed an overwhelming support to argue for another referendum which would be binding at that point.

Re:They are just so stupid

[mjwx]

The best way to steal an election efficiently is to get 5 out of 9 votes that matter. Rest of the votes do not count.

Compared to the usual manner of getting 9 out of the 5 votes that matter.

Then using the military to quash dissent. This appears to be the proven method.

Opposition Faked it to ciminalize him

[Bruha]

I'm sorry, but after the president's ouster it's entirely possible that the coup plotters created these bogus results on the machines. Unfortunately no 3rd party will be allowed to see if the machines were hacked to produce this result, or the ousted government actually tried to rig the elections.

In other words the evidence is questionable both ways.

Re:Opposition Faked it to ciminalize him

[hawk]

The election was rigged per se.

Merely *holding* the election was illegal and in violation of the law. This was settled by law, and in courts.

This was not a "coup" by the lawful government, but rather the lawful government thwarting a coup by the president . . .

hawk

Re:Opposition Faked it to ciminalize him

[Brickwall]

If you had reading comprehension skills beyond the 3rd grade, you'd realize these weren't voting machines. The Honduran authorities had already seized the paper ballots Zelaya intended to distribute. No freakin' hacking was necessary; these were ordinary PC's with some bogus facts and figures on them.

However, I'll concede your point that we'll never know if these figures were created by Zelaya, or by the current government. From what I've read, each explanation seems quite plausible.

Re:Opposition Faked it to ciminalize him

[makomk]

However, I'll concede your point that we'll never know if these figures were created by Zelaya, or by the current government. From what I've read, each explanation seems quite plausible.

Not really. Notice how the figures are all nice round numbers. No-one making up results does that; in fact, IIRC they tend to avoid round numbers whenever possible because they don't feel random enough.

Re:Opposition Faked it to ciminalize him

[Alsee]

This was not a "coup" by the lawful government, but rather the lawful government thwarting a coup by the president

You know what this is seriously starting to sound like?

I'm picturing it taking place in hell. On one side you have Satan trying to do a coup over hell with the aid of Saddam, and Satan's demonic minions are running some sort of counter-coup to overthrow Satan. The demonic minions cast Satan into exile in South Park. The kids are running around trying to figure out which of the two coups they are supposed to be supporting. Jesus comes down to help the kids sort out hell's constitution, but heaven doesn't have any lawyers who can figure out what the hell hell's constitution says. And while the other kids are trying to figure out which side to support, Cartman (backed by his new buddy-in-hell, Hitler) round up all of hell's lawyers and runs his own double coup against both Satan and Satan's minions.

Oh yeah, and Kenny dies. You bastard.

-

Re:Opposition Faked it to ciminalize him

[Alsee]

Notice how the figures are all nice round numbers. No-one making up results does that

Yep, I work as a programmer at Diebold preparing for the 2012 election.
We decided to go with a 100,000,000 vs 10,000,000 final total.
We call it the Babblefish argument, and all charges of election fraud vanish in a puff of logic.

-

Re:Opposition Faked it to ciminalize him

[makomk]

Well, no-one who wants the results to be remotely convincing and isn't a total idiot, anyway. I figure that Diebold fail at least the second requirement. ;-)

Bullshit

[Kyusaku Natsume]

The de facto government in Honduras is looking for pretexts to justify their takeover of power. More than the "Chávez spin" on this coup d'etát, the new govenment has made more than enough proofs that what they are doing is illegal:

-They created a fake letter of resignation the same day that Congress designated the current de facto president, Roberto Micheletti

-The top legal officer of the Army stated that what they did to the president Zelaya was ilegal.

This election was no legally binding, the incentive to fake results was low. At best, a win for president Zelaya only would have strengtened a little his political position on his last months of being president, since for everyone would have been clear that this poll had the same statistical value than slasdot polls.

Now we know why Michael Connell faked his death...

[KenDiPietro]

The real question is did the votes make it to Karl Rove's IT manager's server before they were counted? After all, that might appear to be suspicious, you know, if the guy died in a plane crash before he testified.

Conventional Wisdom picked the WRONG side, AGAIN

[omb]

This smoking gun says that the endless political correctnes that is the USA, today, managed to get a simple issue __wrong__ again, Manuel Zelaya was democratically elected but as with many other countries and leaders, he was in the middle of destroying his country's democracy when ousted. That the undemocratic shills at the UN would oppose was expected, see what they have done about Kaunda, but that the US and Europe would follow is amazing.

What is needed is Congressional term limits in the USA, not their abolition in Honduras.

Now that Chavez has got his way in Venezuela he will be a pain for generations just as Castro was. Every time

This must be the makings of a world record for wrongheadedness and stupidity by both parties in the US, Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan ... and now Honduras.

There must be a very strong case for retiring entirely all staff at Foggy Bottom and Langly and starting again, Wild Bill anyone?, since they always pick the wrong side. Now we risk forcing the population of yet another mid-american country the delights of a corrupt socialist government paradise run by an idiot.

No to eVoting and Digital Democracy

[jmorris42]

> eVoting CAN and WILL happen.

It may come, but it will come over my cold dead body.

> ..every voter must have its own private key... [lots of useless tech details clipped]

The problem is with the tech. You, me and at least 10% of the nerds here on Slashdot could design an evoting system that would be technically perfect. And still spell the final death of our Republic because of the non-technical flaws that can't be fixed with tech.

Problem one. Take away the secret ballot (i.e. the voting booth) and it is 100% certain that vote buying, voter intimidation and many other evils will follow. No ballot cast over the Internet can be proven to be secret. Note that this defect exists with absentee and general mail in balloting as well. Mailed in absentee ballots generally don't decide elections and can be accepted as a compromise. General mail in elections are inherently corrupt.

Problem two. You will never design an electronic system that is 100% proof against fraud. It is doubtful one can be designed as resistant to fraud as paper ballot counted in the open with observers from all camps present.

> Voting could then be extended to government actions that currently skip the peoples' opinion.

You are describing Democracy. And the Founders were aware of this system of government and rightly rejected it as proven by history to be madness. We were instead given a Constitutional Republic. I have seen nothing to indicate the current government educated masses possess such an advanced level of civic virtue as to justify a reevaluation of their verdict on the subject.

Re:No to eVoting and Digital Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem one. Take away the secret ballot (i.e. the voting booth) and it is 100% certain that vote buying, voter intimidation and many other evils will follow.

The secret ballot is a sacred cow that needs to be killed. I am not saying that we give the information away, but an election participant should be assured of at least two things:

1) their vote was counted as intended
2) only legitimate votes were counted

It make no matter if your vote is counted when a fictional voter can be created to negate your vote. Both of these things must be done. I don't think it is possible without an electronic trail. The voter can hold the key, burn it, throw it in the trash, or show it to his boss ("see I voted for masta!"). Vote buying and voter intimidation happen with or without a secret ballot. All the secret ensures is corruption.

We can count votes in congress we ought to be able to do it for 200 million people. If the responsibility is too much too handle, don't vote.

Re:No to eVoting and Digital Democracy

[shutdown -p now]

It may come, but it will come over my cold dead body.

What, exactly, are you going to do? Strap a bomb to your chest and go blow up the first e-voting poll booth that opens in your county?

Re:No to eVoting and Digital Democracy

[shutdown -p now]

Vote buying and voter intimidation happen with or without a secret ballot.

Without secret ballot voter intimidation in particular is much more widespread. If anything, U.S. own history has ample examples of that.

Re:No to eVoting and Digital Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Without secret ballot voter intimidation in particular is much more widespread. If anything, U.S. own history has ample examples of that.

Voter inimidation is a crime. It is an easy to catch crime too (on any practical scale sufficient to affect an outcome). These days, nobody cares who you or I vote for and that is the attitude we need. A system can be easily established with rules and existing laws to protect the rights of voters. The type of voter intimidation is no more or less prevalent in a system that is backed by evidence and verifiable. In fact, if a vote buyer "needs" proof, they are simply establishing one more route by which they are going to spend A LOT of time in prison just to affect the Assistant DA election outcome. That history has examples of voter intimidation is irrelevant. It is not like those voters could verify how their vote was counted or were assured of a secure election.

But secrecy of vote is lost this way

[Kyusaku Natsume]

So is easier to force people to vote for the "correct" guys in office. This is a real trouble in all the places where the votes are casted without secrecy, like workers unions and certain polical parties; at least, here in Mexico elections for most union leaders and primaries in many political parties are done this way. Is no wonder that we have ended with hereditary position "workers leaders" and the same corrupt people in Congress time after time.

Re:But secrecy of vote is lost this way

[Anonymous Coward]

With paper ballots the votes can be observed as they are being cast and counted, but "who is voting for who" could still be kept secret.

It's harder to do all of that and still maintain transparency with electronic voting. By the time you manage to do all of that, all you have is a very expensive version of paper voting that's hardly better in any way.

Could This Be a Chavez-Election Copycat??

[JosedeNoche]

Don't find surprising that Chavez told Zelaya how to perpetually win an "Democratic Election" based on his personal ideals, Latelly all Latinamerica is getting a way to much facist when it comes to eagerly turn every country into socialist (by the force) and stomping people's free will of free choice.

one guy

[circletimessquare]

with the right access (oh, i forgot, government bureaucrats are hard to bribe) can, in 33 milliseconds, change more ballots, invisible to audit, statistically untraceable, than an army of ballot box stuffers can do in 33 days (and of course, conspiracies of thousands of ballot box stuffers is always airtight)

now, also think about the attack vectors: for every scheme you can tell me for altering paper ballots, i can tell you 10 schemes for altering electronic ballots

that you can alter paper ballots is no argument against paper ballots, and that's the only point you made with your comment. electronic voting is inherently and irreducibly less secure than paper ballots, and hell of a lot more expensive, so what is the damn point of electronic ballots again? other than to sow seeds of doubt and destroy the legitimacy of a government? pffffffffft

Re:one guy

[DavidTC]

That was an EPIC FAIL as a troll, dude.

With Handguns

[omb]

The 2nd amendment is very, very important, since it keeps open the possibility of a citizen melitia,

ONE of the things you have to understand about using the military to coerce your own population to fire on their friends or fellow citizens because if they wont you end up with a mutiny as well,

as to stealth bombers, and nukes, they are useless and would not be countenanced within continental NORAM, you need a rifleman, eg the US MARINES, and good luck with even getting the senior officers to order lethal fire, and even more with getting the order obeyed.

Re:With Handguns

[ccmay]

I also think that the right to bear arms is critically important on a symbolic level. A man who owns a gun is a man who can at least speculate about blowing the head off an oppressive policeman, soldier, politician, or bureaucrat. In general, this is a good thing, breeding outspoken, fearless, marginally governable citizens who are exceedingly jealous of their liberties. Having a gun behind every blade of grass makes it much more unlikely that we would ever have to resort to arms to keep our liberty. I carry a handgun wherever I go, not because I am looking for an excuse to shoot someone, nor because I am particularly fearful of crime in my neighborhood, but primarily because it is a constant reminder that I am a citizen and not a subject. This is the reason that the Swiss for centuries required men to bring their swords to public meetings. All men should go armed at all times and in all places.

every single point you made

[circletimessquare]

is 100% accurate

and yet every single style of government other than democracy has weaknesses far worse than democracy

therefore, you embrace democracy, with all the flaws you mentioned. please note that next time you go on this tirade

and yes, government geeks, i understand the difference between a democracy and a republic, but the spirit of this man's post goes far beyond that difference, and directly attacks the legitimacy of consulting the people's will, that's what is wrong with his comment

so no one misses the damn fucking point: democracies manufacture legitimacy. when you consult the will of the people, the people are happy. legitimacy allows for stability, which allows for economic growth, security, education, etc. ANY other style of government decays in legitimacy over time, as the agenda of the people and the agenda of those entrusted to rule the people, for whatever aribtrary reason, begins to drift apart. this appies to technocrats in beijing or theocrats in tehran strong men in harare or kleptocratic generals in yangon

as soon as you tell me the people of a country are stupid and not to be entrusted and you need some special class of people who are better at judging what is good for the people than the peopl themselves, you have just committed a crime of stupidity worse than the worst mob rule and tyranny of the majority you can imagine. please make sure your comment, next time you post it or think it, which is a gateway to aristocratic thought, takes note of what history has taught us about a special class of people that are supposedly wiser than the people themselves. french revolution anyone?

elitist assholes are far worse than mob rule, and your comment stinks of it. all of the flaws of democracy are no worse than the flaws of any other style of government. note that, and don't give me your fucking geek comment "republics are not democracies", i fucking understand that already. the problem is with arguing against the will of the people as the foundation of a government and a society. nothing should break that. nothing. or whatever you have is far worse

elitist assholes are far worse than mob rule, and your comment stinks of it. beware when you begin to distrust the people's will. you are the one has a problem at that point, not the people

Re:every single point you made

[Sycraft-fu]

Or, as Churchill put it quite succinctly: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

In the real world we have to deal with imperfections. We can't have perfect efficiency in anything, including government. You have to find the balance that works the best. You can't demand perfection because you won't get it and refusing any solution less than perfect means you get NO solution.

only thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

only thing is you can't generate your private key , they do that for you..

The significance of this for the rest of the world

[goombah99]

One should of course take such breaking news reports with a grain of salt till confirmed, one could imagine this being some sort of misinterpretation of the observations (e.g. maybe those were early voting ballots??), Moreover this is hondouras.....as I'm sure other posters will talk about.

IN any case assuming the report is correct, it's critical contextual significance is thus:

One of the big strawmen often raised by folks in favor of electronic voting is that there is this supposed panacea called "parallel testing" that is touted as being an invincible process of detecting rigged machines. The idea is that at random a machine will be chosen before the elections begin and pulled out of service, then the election workers will cast pretend votes on it all day long. then it's output checked for accuracy. This is called "parallel" testing because it's done in a time period parallel to a real election, supposedly to "fool" any date dependent software. It's not an awful idea and would indeed detect some kinds of naive electronic fraud. But the idea that this is remotely a solution is even more naive.

Moreover, said proponents don't actually ever do this--- it's just a thought experiment. The real reason for that strawman argument is not that people would actually would do it, it's that since you could in principle do it, this keeps that bad guys at bay. Ha Ha Ha.

So it's such a terrible irony then that the very first time in history that, effectively a different kind of parallel test did occur, that yep massive machine rigging is found!

the parallel test in this case is: call an election. cancel it unexpectedly at the last possible second and impound the machines, test them for rigging.

Go Honduras

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Zelaya, and all the leftist leaders upset by this, including Obama, Chavez, and Castro.

Honduras proved they have a set of balls and aren't going to get pushed around by communists. More power to them.

They did the right thing, just wish they had thrown Zelaya in jail for the rest of his life rather than exile him.

At Diebold...

[Anonymous Coward]

At ${provider}, we guarantee we'll elect the winners, every time!

Addendum/ found some backup

[zogger]

I have found an article where a constitutional lawyer, who hails from Honduras, explains what happened and why it happened. My best guess analysis mirrors just about exactly what he is saying. There is fault on both sides, but their constitution clearly states not only is it illegal to try and change the one term limit, but it is a crime to even propose it! I didn't know that part.

      His own political party, who control the legislature there, voted overwhelmingly for his ouster. Their attorney general ordered the referendum halted, but he was trying to go ahead with it anyway, just by calling it "an opinion poll", just some weasel words. By their law, he shouldn't have been deported (that's the only thing they did technically illegal), but immediately should have been jailed, but they decided it was better to break that one law to avoid mass bloodshed. They estimated if he was still in-country, there just would have been a big bloody mess, and they didn't want that, the rock and the hard place scenario, or what I called picking the lesser of two suckages.

    Here is the article Miguel Estrada: 'Honduran Ouster of Zelaya was Constitutional'

Re:Addendum/ found some backup

[nbates]

Laws are human, and thus will be wrong from time to time.

In this case, I think a law stating you can't "propose to change it" is preposterous.

So using the argument that "it is constitutional" is technically correct, but not the point at all.

It is like saying that it is ok that homosexuals were jailed in the past, because it was illegal after all.

So in this case I think Zelaya deserves our support.

And about those fraud claims... came on... a Catalan newspaper???

Re:Addendum/ found some backup

[ccmay]

Zelaya deserves a bullet between the eyes. Death to all collectivists.

Can have our cake and eat it too.

[Mikey123]

Nobody in his/her right mind should ever endorse computer-only voting or vote-counting. That is a path to madness and rioting. However, with a verifiable mixture of both paper and electronic voting, we could make everybody happy. Proposal: (1) When a citizen votes during an election, as the paper vote is dropped into the ballot box it is simultaneously scanned by an computer reader which is networked to central tabulation HQ.(If the vote cannot be read, it is not accepted into the ballot box) (2) When voting is finished, all voting staff and political party staff (from all parties running) get instant "un-official" print-outs of voting, with results described by each ballot box, across the entire voting area. Also, these "un-official" election results are posted online the very second voting ends. Ballot boxes with paper votes are securely locked down, as always. (3) Before results of the election can be officially announced, two more things must happen: i)a random sample of a significant proportion of ballot boxes must be counted by hand, and verified to be equal to or very, very close to what the "un-official" electronic results were, which were already posted online for each ballot box. ii)every party running in the election is allowed to request an official hand-count of a generous proportion of ballot boxes, at places of their choosing, with hand-count results to be verified against the original "un-official" electronic results. (4) If in step (3) above any of the hand-counting for any single ballot box is off from what the "un-official" electronic tally originally had reported, the electronic results are deemed VOID and completely thrown out. At this point, ALL paper ballots go to be hand-counted, to get the true election outcome. These steps should ensure as verifiable results as we have had with paper-only counting. However, it should cost a lot less this way to conduct elections, as much fewer votes need to be counted (unless the electronic results are off, in which case more money for counting paper votes is the least of the government's problems). Arguably, these steps may also result in official election results being released to the public faster. Electronic voting can be helpful, but let me re-emphasize what I said in the beginning: The day we allow government elections to go electronic-only is the day we ALL lose democracy.

Shhh - it's now Premier Election Solutions

[cheros]

After the "interesting" US results, Diebold renamed itself to Premier Election Solutions.

In short, same sh*t, different name..

It's still not too late...

[GottliebPins]

to get Jimmy Carter to certify the results. Whether the election actually took place is irrelevant.

Re:ACORN?

[Attila Dimedici]

I have seen no proof of voting fraud to elect G.W. Bush. Several newspapers (that overwhelmingly supported Al Gore) did recounts of the Florida 2000 ballots and found that G.W. Bush won the Florida election by any reasonable method of recounting (the only method of recounting that gave Florida to Gore was if one gave him the votes from every ballot that was less than perfectly clear as to who was intended--even when there was no indication that they intended to vote for Gore).

No They Didn't

[Doc Ruby]

No, the army seized him and drove him in his pajamas to the airport. Then wouldn't let him back, even in the company of the UN, the OAS, and other Latin American presidents.

That's not anything like impeachment. That's a textbook coup d'etat, even if he pissed people off enough to bring it on. Pissed some people off. And then the coup pissed a lot more people off, worldwide.

Chavez has nothing to do with it. Unless of course all you can see in this world is "with us or against us", and are still too attached to Bush's BS to actually care about the rule of law.

Re:No They Didn't

[DavidTC]

The Army seized him on the orders of the supreme court because he broke the law:

Article 239 -- No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

You're standing there yammering about the 'rule of law' and you don't even know what it says.

Yes, you might find such a constitutional provision objectionable, but it does, indeed, exist. Merely attempting to alter the term limits of the office of president is illegal and grounds from removal from office. The Honduras Supreme Court found he had, indeed, violated this law, and ordered him removed.

There was a bit of a kerfuffle actually removing him from office, as everyone was unsure that the executive branch would actually do so, but his removal from office was entirely legal and not any sort of 'coup' at all.

off shore propaganda contamination

[Anonymous Coward]

So the military and CIA are not supposed to seed stories into domestic media.

But contamination of domestic media from off shore ops is not their fault, now is it.

Pot is respectful of kettle...

[mi]

Before you Obot twits mindlessly mark me flamebait or troll why not try rebutting my assertion?

A seen on The People's Cube:

Obama: America supports the democratically-elected President of the USA, even though he has strongly opposed American policies.

The US does the exact same thing.

[crhylove]

Maybe we should go down there bomb the shit out of them, and spread some more "Democracy".

Seriously, there hasn't been a non-rigged election in this country for at least 50 years.

Not to mention that the entire press is owned by 5 corporations, so even if there WAS a valid election, real honest people like Ron Paul would still lose to stuffed shirts like Obama.

It's OK, I'm sure RIGHT TO PRIVACY and WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING are copacetic. In our new Orwellian reality, privacy means something else anyway. Just ask Bertelsmann, Disney, News Corp, AOL/Time and Viacom.

Re:The significance of this for the rest of the wo

[DavidTC]

Actually, a parallel test would be easily defeatable.

Simple have special vote, one that is unlikely in the real world such as voting for a Socialist president candidate and a Libertarian senator, and unlikely candidates for a dozen other races, trigger some hidden instruction to alter 15% of the vote for that election.

Also have it the triggered machine mark each 'ballot card' that comes though, which then triggers every other machine to start doing the same thing when that card is placed in another machine.

Then simply have voters in on the fraud, one at each precinct, come in early in the morning and vote that way. The trigger would rapidly spread to all machine, randomly altering 15% of each vote cast, but this would never happen in any of the tests.

If you want to be more sure it won't happen in a test, put a check that if someone does a different irrational voting pattern, one that is close to the actual trigger but not exactly, it will totally disable the trigger, even if someone later gets it right. Which will make it extremely unlikely random random testing will happen to hit on the correct trigger first.

Yeah, some mistakes will get made and someone will screw up putting in the trigger by accident, but they'd do that anyway. And some people won't show up, or they'll make it at 2 in the afternoon. But if 95% of the precincts are shifted one way, and 5% are left at the original place, they aren't going to be looking for fraud in the 95% places.

What? The military lied? No... how could they?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with the post "Opposition Faked it to ciminalize [sic] him", the coup plotters are doing what the can to discredit the Zelaya administration. In the two weeks that they have taken control of the executive branch of the government (they already had control of the legislature and judicial system) they are finding out all kinds of things that the Zelaya government supposedly did. None of these things are being done in a transparent or internationally valid manner. What those in power are trying to do is to obfuscate any possibility of a negotiated solution. While it is mentioned that all this was precipitated by a survey to see if a question could be included in the general election ballot regarding the creation of a constitutional assembly sometime in 2010 (there was no possibility of modifying the constitution prior to the end of Zelaya's term since the elections for president would have taken place well before the constitutional assembly).

What many of us who study Central America suspect (and with good information from many of the principal players on the ground) is that this was an excuse for the ruling elites of Honduras to allow the military to deport the president and many around him, including the minister of foreign affairs, Patricia Rodas who might very soon be a presidential contender, and more importantly, has openly advocated for a weakened military that at the moment operates largely as an autonomous institution. The military has been in the business of running Honduras for decades after deposing the Liberal government of Villeda Morales sending him into exile along with the president of the congress Modesto Rodas, father of Patricia Rodas (Mr. Rodas occupied the same position Mitcheletti held until a few days ago, except that the military did not see him as an ally and sent him to Costa Rica, much in the same way they sent Mr. Zelaya. btw. the "hat" Mr. Zelaya wears is a symbol that represents Modesto Rodas, who died in 1979, but is still a strong presence in Honduran politics).

But how does the military operate with the elite families? Who is in control? The military high command is in tight association with the elite families that have the greatest share of the economic interests in the country (and plenty of bank accounts and investments overseas). These families and the military have business relationships in common--in fact they are undistinguishable since not only are they linked through economic interests, they are tightly integrated through family ties that overlap different sectors (public, private and military). And who are these families?

From what I can discern they are: Canahuati Larach: textiles, pharmaceuticals, banking, soft drinks and media [La Prensa, El Nuevo Dia, El Heraldo]. Facusse: textiles, pharmaceuticals, agro, telecom, banking, construction, media [La Tribuna]. Nasser: telecom. Kafati: agro, pharmaceuticals, coffee and casinos. CarriÃn, commerce (shopping malls). Ferrar: media. Agurcia: hotels, telecom and shipping. Faraj: banking, television, and commerce. Arévalo: electricity. Kafie: milk products and electricity. Rosenthal (who are pro-Zelaya): airlines, banking, media [Tiempo]. Goldstein banking. Kawas Sikafie: construction, cement, media, commerce. Andonie FernÃndez: real estate, pharmaceuticals.

The above list is only a very partial listing of their holdings. Also one has to keep in mind that the coup was leadered by a number of individuals with quite checkered pasts, including Billy Joya, who is now a security advisor to Mitcheletti, but in the 1980s was a founding member of the 3-16 battalion, a death squad, responsible for the disappearances of over 184 individuals. He has also been rumored to be connected to the Cali cartel (though this last allegation is a bit hard to prove since they don't leave much of a paper trial).

This is just a small bit of the story, it gets really strange as one finds out more about the details.

Re:What? The military lied? No... how could they?

[daem0n1x]

Your post has way too much information for the average slashdotter to understand. Just post a half-illiterate rant about how Zelaya was a dangerous communist and the coup leaders were absolutely OK to oust him, etc. It will grant you a +5 Insightful.

Rather not

[zogger]

I guess you missed that part where *members of his own party* voted overwhelmingly to oust him, THEY didn't approve of what he was doing. Also the judges said what he was trying to do was illegal, and etc.

The last thing any of those nations down there is yet another el jefe for life, they've had and still have in some situations enough of those sort of gents.

So nope, if these are the facts as reported so far, I don't think he needs any support, other than perhaps a good lawyer talking to him in his jail cell back home.

Other than that, I got no dog in this fight, I am a neoisolationist practically when it comes to these sort of things. It's up to those folks to sort their own problems out, and since they got rid of the last military dictatorship they have been pleased with having some more rational and fair government, and they purposefully put in those provisions for ONE term precisely to keep it that way, no if's, and's or but's about it. He was trying to change that, and the bulk of the government there agreed, saw that this was blatantly just wrong, so they nipped his little power grab gambit right in the bud.

In relared news ...

[PPH]

... SkyNet candidates win in a landslide.

I am a Honduran Citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, Slashdot is probably the last place I could expect to find an article of my country. I am pretty sure many of you didnt even know where Honduras was located before the coup, and still probably don't know. This is very shameful for me, because the world has come to know what a pitiful society we have become.

I think my opinion is the most unbiased you can find in Honduras. I work for a tech. company and have never participated in any election. That in itself tells you a lot about what I think of our "democracy".

In the specific case of Zelaya's removal, I can tell you that he is no more or less corrupt than all of our previous presidents had been. The guy is stupid, but again, he is just one more of the clan. Was he trying to get reelected for another term by amending the constitution? Most likely yes. Is that reason enough to send 200 military and then abduct him and take him to another country against his own will? Definitely not.

Justified or not, this is a military coup, call it humanitary, anti Chavez, popular or whatever you like, but it still is a military coup. Does our constitution provide a way to impeach a president? No it does not, but there is a very good reason for that. If there was a way to remove a president from office in Honduras, then the military would have done so a long time ago. The only way our constitution lets a president to leave office is through death or proven severe illness, he isn't even allowed to leave office by his own will.

One more thing, during the coup, the military cut off electricity in most of the country, strike bombers were sent out to patrol the skies, independent media outlets were shut down, CNN and other international news outlets were taken off by the cable companies via direct orders of the military, the pro-coup media was made to transmit cartoons and soccer matches(this was very common in the 1980's coups in Latin America). I can hardly see whats so f****ing "constitutional" about that. Until today, we are not allowed to be on the streets after 11:00pm, and whenever there are news showing marches in favor of Zelaya in independent or pro Zelaya news channels, the signal miraculously goes off.

On the issue about the computers. Don't expect any news coming from the government controlled media to be reliable. During the day of the coup, the congress presented a resignation note from Zelaya, which everybody later found out it was a fake. The note was never heard of again.

  Zelaya might be a lousy and corrupt head of state, but if this justifies a military coup, then maybe even the USA would have deserved one during the last administration.

One more thing, our constitution prohibits that any Honduras citizen is taken out of the country by his/her own will. Just do your own math, and from all the things I've told you, guess which side has violated or constitution the most?

Re:I am a Honduran Citizen

[macraig]

It sucks to be nothing more than a mere citizen in these situations, and have to endure watching these manipulators use everyone else for their own purposes, doesn't it? We here in the U.S. know how it feels, lately because of Bush and Cheney, but personally I don't think it's over with Obama in office....

It was NOT a COUP!

[Ungrounded Lightning]

As I understand it the president in question was "ousted" by legal proceedings before the country's supreme court, brought by their legislature in the proper constitutional manner. Then their military followed the proper procedure to implement the decision.

It's as if a US president were impeached, tried, and convicted, his proper successor took over, and the military, police, and bureaucracy all acknowledged this and followed the legal orders of the new president.

A coup, on the other hand, is a takover of a country by a faction of the military, outside of normal legal proceedings (though they generally make some mouth noises about it being the right, proper, and allegedly temporary thing to do - the better to keep theose supporting the ousted government off balance.)

So will everybody on slashdot (or at least the bulk of us who have a clue) PLEASE stop calling it a COUP?

Yes I know our own press and government are using the C-word. But WE know better, don't we.

Thank you.

Re:It was NOT a COUP!

[Paua Fritter]

Not the case at all, I'm afraid.

Zelaya also has constitutional rights: the right to defend himself at a trial is one ("due process"). Even if duly convicted, he would absolutely retain the right to remain in Honduras. Sending Hondurans into exile is expressly forbidden in the Honduran constitution. So the maneouvres against him were actually illegal, despite their legal form. When the military illegally exiles the democratically elected president and actively prevents his return, beats up on foreign diplomats, establishes a curfew, and shoots and kills demonstrators, this is what's usually known as a coup d'etat. And this is what the official representatives of every government world-wide are calling it, in fact, not just the US government.

You can't stop a bullet with a bigger bullet.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

And it was a good rationale...when the populace was armed with muskets, and the government was armed with muskets.

Actually, at the time the population was armed with accurate-at-a-distance RIFLES (compared to the Brits' smoothbores), cannon, warships (merchant ships often carried cannon to fend off pirates and military ships of other countries).

Which doesn't really matter. Because you can't stop a bullet with a bigger bullet.

The "liberator" pistol was a one-shot (and unscrew parts to reload) "zip gun". Made mostly of cheap stamped parts at a cost of under $10 it was air dropped by the thousands into German occupied areas in WW II. It came with a handgrip full of extra rounds and an instruction manual in comic book form:
  - Here's how to load and fire it.
  - Sneak up on the German soldier.
  - Shoot him point-blank.
  - Take HIS rifle and ammo.
  - Give the Liberator and the remaining rounds to another resistance fighter who doesn't have a gun yet.

Now the populace is armed with, at best, assault rifles, and the government is armed with tanks.

Tanks without infantry support are cans of soldiers waiting to be cooked. Tanks WITH infantry support are crowds of soldiers waiting to be shot, blown up, burned, gassed, ...

A good varmint gun qualifies as an exceptional sniper rifle. A shotgun at appropriate ranges is more firepower against advancing troops - though for a shorter time - than a machine gun.

But if the US government came against its own people you can bet that a bunch of 'em will honor their oaths to the constitution over orders. Think large-scale desertion and coat-turning WITH equipment. Opening of the armories for the population. Lots of ex-military, reserve, and state militia types (with THEIR armories full of stuff - including the tanks you're so concerned about) will be out on a constitutional side, too.

A determined population armed with a few guns can eventually prevail. (Even with a VERY few VERY low power guns they can do quite well. The starving denizens of the Warsaw Ghetto held off the bulk of the German Army for better than a week starting with a dozen handguns and sporting rifles.)

As to capabilities: The typical private gun owner who practices occasionally can shoot rings around the typical non-SWAT policeman.

The Second Amendment isn't just about making it possible for the people to resist the tyranny that the founders thought any government would gravitate toward. It's to make the population's advantage SO OVERWHELMING that no government official could delude himself that he might be able to win.

Re:You can't stop a bullet with a bigger bullet.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its like my local police official once said after dropping by my house to check out my new toys. (I am very good friends with my local PD)

"I know where I will be going in the event that we have a real problem"

The reality is that you would rather have half of the things that are in my vault than any one tank.

Not really true.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... peculiarly, the Honduran Constitution does not include an impeachment procedure

But it does specify that anyone who advocates or takes steps to modify the portion of the constitution immediately loses any government office he holds and is banned from holding a government office for ten years.

This is what Zelaya did. The head of his party called for his ouster and the Supreme Court ruled that he was in violation of this section and no longer the President.

Even if the steps weren't explicitly laid out in advance this sounds like a constitutional impeachment procedure to me.

Missing a phrase.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

But it does specify that anyone who advocates or takes steps to modify the portion of the constitution ...

limiting the president to a single term ... immediately loses any government office he holds and is banned from holding a government office for ten years.

But is the news trustworthy?

[Robynthegeek]

I can't help but ask if one of the reasons this bit of news has not been published is that it has not come from a trustworthy source. What better way to discredit an ousted politician than for the new government to discover obvious signs of corruption? Also, the numbers cited in the article as the fake results are not very believable, with each value ending in 0. If you were to fake election results, wouldn't you try just a bit harder? (This is not to say that this bit of news might not be true, or that Zelaya might not be guilty of corruption, but that we ought to take such convenient news with a grain of salt).

Saw the same thing in 2000...

[Pezistential]

.... nope not in the U.S. but in Venezuela. Come to think of it, I saw it again in 2001 and 2002 too. Then after some thinking about it in a cell in Maiqeutia, I decided that I didn't want to see it again in 2003, 2004, etc... I'm surprised Jimmy Carter hasn't stepped up to "certify" this election as well.

Re:ACORN?

[ccmay]

George Bush narrowly defeated a dastardly plot by Democrat thugs to steal the 2000 election. And the 2004 election was not even in the same ballpark; Bush legitimately thrashed Kerry. I like to think that the spectacle of Dan Rather and his minions trying to throw the election with forged documents may have made up the margin of victory.

Repost from an annonimous honduran citizen

[Kyusaku Natsume]

From this comment http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1307779&cid=28752917

Hi, Slashdot is probably the last place I could expect to find an article of my country. I am pretty sure many of you didnt even know where Honduras was located before the coup, and still probably don't know. This is very shameful for me, because the world has come to know what a pitiful society we have become. I think my opinion is the most unbiased you can find in Honduras. I work for a tech. company and have never participated in any election. That in itself tells you a lot about what I think of our "democracy". In the specific case of Zelaya's removal, I can tell you that he is no more or less corrupt than all of our previous presidents had been. The guy is stupid, but again, he is just one more of the clan. Was he trying to get reelected for another term by amending the constitution? Most likely yes. Is that reason enough to send 200 military and then abduct him and take him to another country against his own will? Definitely not. Justified or not, this is a military coup, call it humanitary, anti Chavez, popular or whatever you like, but it still is a military coup. Does our constitution provide a way to impeach a president? No it does not, but there is a very good reason for that. If there was a way to remove a president from office in Honduras, then the military would have done so a long time ago. The only way our constitution lets a president to leave office is through death or proven severe illness, he isn't even allowed to leave office by his own will. One more thing, during the coup, the military cut off electricity in most of the country, strike bombers were sent out to patrol the skies, independent media outlets were shut down, CNN and other international news outlets were taken off by the cable companies via direct orders of the military, the pro-coup media was made to transmit cartoons and soccer matches(this was very common in the 1980's coups in Latin America). I can hardly see whats so f****ing "constitutional" about that. Until today, we are not allowed to be on the streets after 11:00pm, and whenever there are news showing marches in favor of Zelaya in independent or pro Zelaya news channels, the signal miraculously goes off. On the issue about the computers. Don't expect any news coming from the government controlled media to be reliable. During the day of the coup, the congress presented a resignation note from Zelaya, which everybody later found out it was a fake. The note was never heard of again. Zelaya might be a lousy and corrupt head of state, but if this justifies a military coup, then maybe even the USA would have deserved one during the last administration. One more thing, our constitution prohibits that any Honduras citizen is taken out of the country by his/her own will. Just do your own math, and from all the things I've told you, guess which side has violated or constitution the most?

Sounding a bit like the recent Iranian election...

[jazuki]

Paper ballots, but prefabricated results. (With many jurisdictions turning out many more votes than voters, and in many cases preliminary reports coming out almost the opposite of the final reports.)

I wonder if this is becoming an industry.

Fixed in more than one way?

[Anonymous Coward]

E.g. Coup at 10.40 pm 28 June

'Election' files creation time 11.00 pm 28 June

Just sayin'

Re:ACORN?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have seen no proof of voting fraud to elect G.W. Bush. Several newspapers (that overwhelmingly supported Al Gore) did recounts of the Florida 2000 ballots and found that G.W. Bush won the Florida election by any reasonable method of recounting (the only method of recounting that gave Florida to Gore was if one gave him the votes from every ballot that was less than perfectly clear as to who was intended--even when there was no indication that they intended to vote for Gore).

I can't be the only one who finds it hilarious that if Gore had only won his OWN HOME STATE, he would have won the 2000 election.

SSSSHHH!!!!

[GameboyRMH]

Corporations as elected officials? Don't give them any ideas!

subject line

[Anonymous Coward]

Why isn't there a 'democrats' keyword, you pseudo-intellectual basement-dwelling pansies?

Communism

[Mr. Firewall]

One hundred million people slaughtered and you get lost when someone calls that "evil"?

Re:Communism

[hanabal]

Explain how an economic system. which so far has never been fully attempted. slaughters anyone

Re:Communism

[Mr. Firewall]

Google is your friend. Try "communism 100 million dead"

Re:Communism

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Well you see it's really simple. Keeping a human alive is not free. This isn't a problem of capitalist economies, it's a problem of reality. Humans require food, clothing, heat (or cold, depending on the location), all sorts of infrastructure, clean water, ... none of which is free.

In a communist system, the economy cannot grow (as proven in theoretical economics), due to (among other problems) the "broken windows fallacy".

If government spending is 100% efficient (and comprises 100% of the economy ... which is the definition of communism), with zero government employees, zero bribery, no black markets, free police force, zero unofficial trade, etc ... it will create a steady state economy : a constant GDP.

Obviously with less than 100% efficiency, as anyone in the real world must be, GDP will drop, and drop, and drop, and drop. Until the GDP is no longer enough to keep people alive. This could theoretically take 1000 years, but in practice it's never taken even 50 years.

Therefore, communism kills, even in pure theoretical implementations. And any practical implementations ... kill faster due to being less perfect than the theory.

Communism slaughters anyone who tries to live by it's rules. Of course if this weren't true, if communism were better, making the world communist would be as simple as starting up a single communist community. Since communism is better it would outcompete capitalism, until it's economy encompassed 100% of the world economy. Obviously anyone can observe that, despite many desperate tries, no such thing has happened.

Communism slaughters anyone living under it. In practice those people are nearly always forced to live under it.

Re:Communism

[ravenshrike]

Given that it is impossible for humans to 'fully attempt' said system because of rather basic instincts(which ironically are the same tribal instincts that regularly give birth to memes like socialism and communism) and limitations(monkeysphere bitches) the real world outcome of attempting said system is and will remain EVIL.

Predictable PR

[bstender]

Leftist ousted by CIA-backed coup, plain and simple. they are really getting their game back. After Iran they must be feeling their oats, who knows, maybe they can oust Chavez, or, dare they dream, topple Castro?

WAS A COUP!

[bstender]

time for YOU to get a clue, it was a COUP... a Ft Benning special.

Re:Conventional Wisdom picked the WRONG side, AGAI

[knifeyspooney]

Now that Chavez has got his way in Venezuela he will be a pain for generations just as Castro was.

Unlike Castro, Chavez has been elected and re-elected in fair elections. Chavez did propose the elimination of term limits, but the public rejected it in a referendum he has agreed to honor.

So by "got his way" you mean "got elected and democratically pursued reforms"? The tyrant!

Re:ACORN?

[knifeyspooney]

Citation? The major study I'm familiar with, performed by a consortium of major media outlets -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html -- found that a statewide recount of the votes would have Gore the winner.

Remember who was supporting the dictator

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember the ousted leader is a dictator that Obama supports.
He supports someone who subverts the constitution to stay in office longer and give more power to himself.

Also of note is Obama's lack of support for people in Iran who are protesting a clearly fraudulent election, which gives support to the dictator there.

Obama wants to support and legitimize dictators like this guy in Honduras because he is a dictator. Birds of a feather stick together.

Of course he'll probably denounce the guy now because of this fraudulent election result. But he should have denounced him before this, it was obvious to anyone who looked at the facts that the "military coup" was necessary to remove the dictator from an office he was stealing.

Sheesh. All the same crapola again.

[jules_siegel]

[1] He NEVER mentioned reelection. NEVER. [2] It wasn't a referendum. It was an opinion survey. It had no official function of any kind. It was a question about how people would feel about putting a hypothetical question on the November ballot. [3] Neither the Supreme Court or congress has any constitutional authority to remove a sitting president. Article 239 does say that anyone who proposes reelection extending the presidential term ceases functioning as president. It does not establish any procedure for enforcing this. [4] The Supreme Court did not mention Article 239 in its order, although it is festooned with other constitutional and legal references. It ordered the army to arrest Zelaya and bring him before a magistrate. The army ignored the order and illegally deported him instead. They also forged a letter of resignation and claimed he was resigning for reasons of health. This was probably a polite way of saying that health can be harmed by a bullet to the back of the head. [5] Zelaya had full legal and constitutional authority to fire the army chief of staff. [6] Competent legal experts in Honduran constitution law argue that Zelaya never technically violated the injunctions against distributing the opinion survey because the decree by Congress had never been published in the official government gazette and therefore was not effective, and also because it did not apply to an opinion survey (not mentioned in the decree) but a referendum (specifically mentioned). [7] The computers were probably being set up to tabulate the opinion survey, not a trivial process for millions of votes. a. This had to be done from scratch by technicians from project 'Learn' of the Honduran Council on Science and technology aimed at rural schools because the National Research Institute had declined to tabulate the poll. b. The government investigator produced exactly one tabulation with admittedly absurd figures, which would lead any sane observer to conclude that they were dummy figures. c. Why would technicians carrying out a slick fraud make up more voters than existed in a well-known town? Because they weren't carrying out a slick fraud. They were making up stuff to see how the tabulation system worked. The "incriminating" evidence was a document with header information "Test spreadsheet." Yep. That's prima facie evidence of fraud right there. Think of it. A test spread sheet. Bad stuff. Very bad stuff. I mean it was probably Excel. How much more evil can it get than that? [8] Zelaya had absolutely nothing to gain personally from the proposed constitutional convention because: a. It would take place long after he was out of office. b. It could not even raise the topic of reelection because the old constitution forbidding that would still be in force. [9] The issues that were going to be raised at the proposed constitutional convention had to with long-standing sore points such as land tenure by indigenous peoples, military immunity from prosecution, broadening the people's role in Honduran democracy and other topics. You can read my full report on the controversy on Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jules-siegel/honduras-supreme-court-it_b_230621.html Now all who come after me in this thread are hereby enjoined from repeating the totally discredited claims under threat of maximum punishment that shall be carried out by the competent authorities without let or mercy or further review. SO LET IT BE WRITTEN. SO LET IT BE DONE.

Re:Conventional Wisdom picked the WRONG side, AGAI

[HornWumpus]

Chavez will continue to put Venezuela's economy even further in the crapper.

It's only a question of when he hangs from a street light. He can only rig so many elections before it's laughably obvious.

Cubans would have ousted Fidel decades ago absent Soviet financial and military support.

So what you're saying is...

[raehl]

There is no reason for the populace to have semi-automatic weapons, since any single-shot pistol will do?