Seeing the way you guys do elections (amongst more things) makes me happy to be a German.
Anyway. There's been several older attempts to make PC's fall under GEZ fee and all have stopped short of a legal way of doing so. This is yet another one, now with the coverage of the national press (by claiming this was actually a fact) but to tell the truth, all German people are as anti-GEZ as can be.
Many German analysts believe that collecting fees on PCs will - besides of being illegal - only lead to less income for the national TV funding. Peoples comments on this are pretty clear: Millions will claim to have sold their TV sets and not own computers to get rid of GEZ for good, myself being only one of them.
Popularity of GEZ is about at the same level as your RIAA and their methods are pretty much the same as good old Stasi, an open secret in Germany.
So, on the bottom line, there is a 50% chance that the GEZ will be stopped for good.
If you're capable of reading first level sources on the topic, this article might be quite interesting to you, coward: klik, it pretty much reflects the way people think about the matter.
This whole thread really makes me wonder. What is the big deal with electronic voting machines if not the ability for individuals or authorities to alter electional results at their own likes?
Haven't computers been primarily desingned to _manipulate_ data?
Anyway. Let me try to give you a different view of the whole thing.
I volunteer in one of the major European countries electional system. Anybody here, who has the right to participate in elections may also volunteer to help with counting the votes, this being the first level of trust. Regardless of your politcal opinion, you may make sure that the election is properly done. Although our country has only one third of the inhabitants the US has, I think it is well comparable.
We use the old style cellulose/chemical ink type of ballots, where voters have to clearly mark their preference with a cross or any other sign that seems appropiate (check-mark, smiley, whatever). This is _very_ hard to tamper with, in order to fake an election, you will have to make a whole lot of original ballots disappear and inject your own, this under the eyes of a team of at least three people watching every step you do. Plain old paper & proper markings are the second level of trust.
We sure look at the voters. If in doubt of their identity, we ask for proof of identity (sometimes Mr. X wants to vote as Mrs. Y, has happened before). A machine, no matter how well it was designed, will never look at people and check ID if in doubt.
We don _not_ give people proof of what they voted for, because elections - at least in my country - are secret, so 'dad' won't be able to ask for proof of which party 'mom' voted for. If people can't remember where they made their cross, they are simply out of luck.
Ballots are inserted into the voting box one by one with two volunteers watching. Of course, the voting box is locked during the election process.
Immediately after the election, the team of volunteers (usually 5-7 per location) starts to count the votes manually. Counting is a public thing, so anyone can come into the room and watch how it is done. We ourselves count, recount and sure have an eye on what the other volunteers in the team are doing. Equals: Third level of trust.
After counting, we immediately phone back the results to the elections office. The ballots are kept for recounting, any ones that are uncertain, we vote wether they count or not. If in doubt, they don't count. The results of this (per ballot) vote are noted on the back of the ballot.
What's the downside of this procedure? It is _not_ slower than using electronic devices. It is almost 100% tamper proof (isn't this one of the primary goals of any electional system?). Well, using paper causes high cost, you will need to print and distribute several million ballots just in time. You will need many people to help with the election. So what? As long as enough people volunteer, it can be done.
Whats the upsides? First of all, it works quite well. Elections have a clear result, we never had to ask a court (!) for clarification. If an election was ever unclear, it would have to be _repeated_. Everybody here agrees that involving courts into the electional process greatly disturbs that balance of powers - it is just a no-go. Also, we can hardly ever run into an unclear situation, because we don't punch tiny holes into cards, we actually trust voters to be able to _clearly_ mark their likes and if they can't, they are out of luck and their votes won't count.
The biggest advantage of the plain old paper elections is, that they are free of commercial interests as they should be. Also, it is _not_ the state that actually does the work in the electional process, it is the voters themselves as they do have greatest interest to produce accurate results.
So, looking at the mess, the US electional system is in, I really wonder why your current government (!) insists on using electronic voting devices. I also remember that it was never elected by the people in the first place, to my understanding, the last election would have had to be repeated. Maybe this time, they just want to make sure that they are 'properly elected' and another PR desaster is avoided.
Slashdot Mirror
just watch out what you're saying, coward.
Seeing the way you guys do elections (amongst more things) makes me happy to be a German.
Anyway. There's been several older attempts to make PC's fall under GEZ fee and all have stopped short of a legal way of doing so. This is yet another one, now with the coverage of the national press (by claiming this was actually a fact) but to tell the truth, all German people are as anti-GEZ as can be.
Many German analysts believe that collecting fees on PCs will - besides of being illegal - only lead to less income for the national TV funding. Peoples comments on this are pretty clear: Millions will claim to have sold their TV sets and not own computers to get rid of GEZ for good, myself being only one of them.
Popularity of GEZ is about at the same level as your RIAA and their methods are pretty much the same as good old Stasi, an open secret in Germany.
So, on the bottom line, there is a 50% chance that the GEZ will be stopped for good.
If you're capable of reading first level sources on the topic, this article might be quite interesting to you, coward: klik, it pretty much reflects the way people think about the matter.
This whole thread really makes me wonder. What is the big deal with electronic voting machines if not the ability for individuals or authorities to alter electional results at their own likes?
Haven't computers been primarily desingned to _manipulate_ data?
Anyway. Let me try to give you a different view of the whole thing.
I volunteer in one of the major European countries electional system. Anybody here, who has the right to participate in elections may also volunteer to help with counting the votes, this being the first level of trust. Regardless of your politcal opinion, you may make sure that the election is properly done. Although our country has only one third of the inhabitants the US has, I think it is well comparable.
We use the old style cellulose/chemical ink type of ballots, where voters have to clearly mark their preference with a cross or any other sign that seems appropiate (check-mark, smiley, whatever). This is _very_ hard to tamper with, in order to fake an election, you will have to make a whole lot of original ballots disappear and inject your own, this under the eyes of a team of at least three people watching every step you do. Plain old paper & proper markings are the second level of trust.
We sure look at the voters. If in doubt of their identity, we ask for proof of identity (sometimes Mr. X wants to vote as Mrs. Y, has happened before). A machine, no matter how well it was designed, will never look at people and check ID if in doubt.
We don _not_ give people proof of what they voted for, because elections - at least in my country - are secret, so 'dad' won't be able to ask for proof of which party 'mom' voted for. If people can't remember where they made their cross, they are simply out of luck.
Ballots are inserted into the voting box one by one with two volunteers watching. Of course, the voting box is locked during the election process.
Immediately after the election, the team of volunteers (usually 5-7 per location) starts to count the votes manually. Counting is a public thing, so anyone can come into the room and watch how it is done. We ourselves count, recount and sure have an eye on what the other volunteers in the team are doing. Equals: Third level of trust.
After counting, we immediately phone back the results to the elections office. The ballots are kept for recounting, any ones that are uncertain, we vote wether they count or not. If in doubt, they don't count. The results of this (per ballot) vote are noted on the back of the ballot.
What's the downside of this procedure? It is _not_ slower than using electronic devices. It is almost 100% tamper proof (isn't this one of the primary goals of any electional system?). Well, using paper causes high cost, you will need to print and distribute several million ballots just in time. You will need many people to help with the election. So what? As long as enough people volunteer, it can be done.
Whats the upsides? First of all, it works quite well. Elections have a clear result, we never had to ask a court (!) for clarification. If an election was ever unclear, it would have to be _repeated_. Everybody here agrees that involving courts into the electional process greatly disturbs that balance of powers - it is just a no-go. Also, we can hardly ever run into an unclear situation, because we don't punch tiny holes into cards, we actually trust voters to be able to _clearly_ mark their likes and if they can't, they are out of luck and their votes won't count.
The biggest advantage of the plain old paper elections is, that they are free of commercial interests as they should be. Also, it is _not_ the state that actually does the work in the electional process, it is the voters themselves as they do have greatest interest to produce accurate results.
So, looking at the mess, the US electional system is in, I really wonder why your current government (!) insists on using electronic voting devices. I also remember that it was never elected by the people in the first place, to my understanding, the last election would have had to be repeated. Maybe this time, they just want to make sure that they are 'properly elected' and another PR desaster is avoided.