Everyone who works a good 8 hours deserves a good wage. The fact that foreign countries have opressed and impovershed their citizens makes their labor no more valuable then that of domestic labor.
All off-shoring to Mexico, India and China does is enrich the masters, not the serfs. They will be paid a LOT more based on their impovershment.
So we in the US are now allowing the tyrannical imporvershment of foreign slave masters to dicatate what AMERICANS should be paid. Fuck that and FUCK YOU!!!!!
Virtually every country on the earth has EVERTHING it needs to be happy, successfull and prosperous. They don't need American dollars. They need higher level of equality and democracy within their societies.
The US isn't perfect, but we have a LOT more class equality then most of the world. I dare say it's much better to be black in America than a Pariah in India!!!!!!
And what did that mean for future generations? They would not have to work 14hrs/day in a textile factory, they went into higher value-added professions, earned more, had more, skill, better education.
Instead, dark people from southern continents work 16 hours in dank textile factories. Sometimes they are supervised by thugs with shotguns.
Negotiate better working conditions, not on your life. We are funding the abuse of these peoples. At the same time, we are impovershing our communities.
We should not trade with countries that do not take human and civil rights seriously.
BTW, it's still possible to have a counting/Auditing system that:
A) Correctly tells the voter WHO they voted for based on the records.
B) Intentionally miscounts and schews the election.
Garbage in, Garbage out. The danger of electronic voting AND counting is that it is VERY succeptable to this type of nonsense. How could anyone tell the difference.
This is why the hand-counters probably have it right.
The receipt should contain an alpha-numeric encoding that will show who they voted for. Then they could check an independent system that would decode it and say WHO they voted for.
The receipt should also contain a tear off section that only says that they voted and not WHO they voted for. This would be shown to employers if they asked for proof that they voted during their time off.
I agree that the ballot should be secret. If you mapped a hash so that 5-10% of the voters end up with the SAME ID number, you would be in no danger of identifying individuals. Another thing you could do is ask a semi-personal non-sensical question as part of the vote.
What is your favorite color a) Red, B) Green, C) Blue, D) Pink E) Yellow (ahhhhhh!!!;-)
The "favorite color" bit could be hashed into the voter ID. You would have no way to "read" the voter receipt without knowing their "favorite color". You would not use any "knowable data", only non-relevant questions that wouldn't be recorded.
Like.....
What is your favorite breakfast beverage???? A) Cola B) Juice C) Coffee D) Tea E) Water
Which animal do you like the most???? A) Dog B) Cat C) Horse D) Bird E) Fish
What is your favorite form of recreation??? A) TV B) Reading C) Sports D) Video Games E) Slashdot;-)
etc....
Use the answer to mask the ID. The answer is never recorded with reference to the voter. That way, there is no effective way to repeat the hash unless you knew the "favorite beverage" or whatever for a person you cannot identify.
The Constitution grants states the power to decide HOW they cast their votes. But they must comply with federal law regarding what timeframe they must submit those votes.
Also, certain states (southern) have to clear their election laws with federal courts because of constant abuses to the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
The media lies, and more lies about "liberals"
on
More E-Voting SNAFUs
·
· Score: 1
I think that your support of Cynthia McKinney speaks volumes about your ability to choose reliable leaders! These are the lies of the lazy corporate right biased media.
For more instances of the lazy corporate right serving media, see www.dailyhowler.com
For more information on WHY the corporate media is lazy, right biased and overall DUMB, read "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them: A Fair and Balanced look at the Right".
The fact that we vote by states is good. We are after all a Republic. However, the method of the voting leaves something to be desired. It would be nice if there was some measure of proportional voting on the state level.
For example, I tend to vote Democrat and I live in Indiana. One could claim that my vote is wasted because Indiana virtually ALWAYS goes Republican. Even if 49% of Hoosiers vote Democratic, ALL of the Indiana votes go Republican.
I personally believe that a reform of the Electoral college is in order. Electors should be doled out proportionally. Basically the winner takes the error.
So, if you get 57% of the vote. You get AT LEAST 57% of the electors. In a state with 10 electors, you would get 6. Subsequent electors would be distributed accordingly in order of the winner.
Conveniently, Indiana has 10 electors (10 congressman), so it is an exellect example.
Joe Repub 62% Dave Dem 32% Green Gary 5% Ind Ivan 1%
So Joe Repub got 62% of the Vote, he gets AT LEAST 62%..62 * 10 = 6.2, round up for 7 electors.
Dave Dem got 32% of the Vote..32 * 10 = 3.2. Round up for 4, since there are only three remaining, he gets the rest.
The system goes from "winner takes all" to "winner takes a bit more than his share". This would take emphasis off of the "Big States" like New York, Florida, Texas and California. It would return emphasis to pretty much everybody else. The election would be won by gaining points in MANY states instead of a few points in the BIG states.
It would also encourage voting by a states minority party. For example, California typically ALWAYS goes Democrat in presidential elections. This could discourage Republicans from voting.
The vote would be proportional. At the same time, it would still be a Republic and avoid the COMPLETE quagmire of nationwide recounts.
Finally, small states would NOT lose their voting clout under this plan. Small states would retain their clout or increase it. The reason is that swaying a small number of votes in a small state would swing an elector. A much larger number would be required to sway an elector in a small state.
The ultimate result is that candidates will spend less time in large battleground states and more time across the entire nation trying to pull out those critical votes that will add up to a win.
Apparantly, Daley Sr proudly votes for his son every election;-)
No seriously, the modern Chicago machine is not one driven by fraud. It's driven by power, influence and the lack of an alternative. In Chicago, even the Republicans are Democrats.
There is no law in the US allowing a state to re-vote for federal elections. It's simply not an option.
In this way, our democracy is weak. If there are obvious examples of shennanigans, other countries can re-vote. There is little risk if the vote was valid, it would simply be a re-run of the previous results. The only risk is that those who spent so much time and effort fixing the elections will lose it AND have all their schemes exposed.
You see, if you WIN the election you fixed, there is little chance you will be punished. The reasons are obvious. You control the prosecutors and hence you can stop any investigation that would reveal your wrong-doing. This is the #1 reason that citizens should be capable of independently pursuing matters of vote fraud through civil courts.
Both Bush's won Florida with TONS of evidence of voting irregularities. Those issues will never be pursued by Florida or the Feds for the simple reason that the Bush's will not allow it.
Some efforts were made by former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney from Atlanta. She got the ChoicePoint CEO to fess up in a congressional inquiry. She was swiftly dealt with in the subsequent election. That is, they poored money into her opponents campaign coffers and made up a bunch of dirty lies against her (as they did against Al Gore).
When the Republicans control the software, it IS a partisan issue.
When the machines are throwing elections on the behalf of Republicans (as happened in Florida 2000), it IS a partisan issue.
Finally, the fact that Republicans are FOR e-voting and Democrats are AGAINST it, ABSOLUETLY makes it a partisan issue. You cannot be Bi-Partisan if the other party doesn't agree.
Democrats are not Saints. They too have been known to play tricks with elections.
In a democracy, manipulating the vote is comparable to heresy. It should be amongst the highest crimes.
I say a minimum of 20 years in jail for anyone caught willfully manipulating an election. In democracy, voting is sacred.
If a Democrat is caught with his hand in the cookie jar, he should be hung from the same branch as a Republican.
Re:Threat of e-voting fraud not a big deal
on
More E-Voting SNAFUs
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Oh yeah, and the CEOs of those companies are Bush "Pioneers". Meaning they have raised over $100,000 for the Bush election committee.
Here's the process:
1) Fund raiser collects a bunch of money for Bush. 2) Fund raiser is rewarded with legislation forcing municipalities to buy the equipment from said fundraiser. 3) Fund raiser profits AND directly begins manipulating the election for said president. 4) Fund raiser is further rewarded with jobs from third parties.
The bitch is that most of this is perfectly legal.
Re:Bill Could Rule Out Open Source Voting Software
on
More E-Voting SNAFUs
·
· Score: 1
Under World Trade Organization rules, this would effectively be illegal. It would unnecessarily contstrain trade.
Why????? It would constrain the ability of Bangalore programming firms to do work for American voting systems.
Just an indication that corporate rule isn't mearly meant for the US, it is intended for the whole world.
I think Diebold has EXACTLY the right people in place for their intentions. People who have experience in fraud and computer tampering.
If you wish to steal elections, who better to hire than thieves.
Re:I am committed to delivering ...
on
More E-Voting SNAFUs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
He didn't publicly announce it. It was part in conjunction with fund-raising.
The issue is whether he has a conflict of interest. Can you be professional at the same time as doing "everything possible" to make sure that Bush is the winner? Could Katherine Harris do this in Florida?????
To quote deep throat "These people really aren't that bright". They are simply rich and influential. They are willing to trade their values for personal power and influence. There is nothing about this that requires high intelligence or Machievellien sensibilities.
Of course, when you effectively control the press, your tongue can be a lot looser. Your allies will squash the stories that aren't conducive to your agenda. They will also lie virulentally about your opponents (Al Gore NEVER said that he invented the internet. Never said that he was an inspiration for Love Story (even though he WAS)).
The Gerbil's method of propaganda is the one of the day. Repeat your lies, squash your opponents, invent an enemy, then take the people's freedoms with their enthusiastic consent.
It's becoming increasingly clear that our demoncracy is under assault from a hunta that wants to end it.
The big difference is they want to maintain the appearance that we are a democracy. What better way than pure electronic voting that can be manipulated at will with no possibility of auditing.
BTW, the evidence that Bush was negligent with his domestic security policy is growing. One could make the case that Bush WANTED a terrorist attack so he could infringe freedom in the interest of "defending" democracy.
Bush's demeanor on 9/11 is nothing short of bizarre. An airliner smashes into the World Trade Center and he decides to go read about Giddy the Goat to a bunch of kindegartners. The look on his face when he's told about the second crash is nothing short of vacuous. It proves nothing but makes one wonder exactly what was going through that skull.
The Patriot acts are proof enough that he cares nothing of freedom. So is holding American citizens incommunicado as "foreign enemy combatants". Thank goodness that this was recently held unconstitutional. The next step would be "dissapearing" people who disagreed with the administration.
It would require the bosses at these mega-corporations to care about something other than their bottom line.
The system is delivering the change they want. President Bush is mowing down the laws protecting consumers from big business and big media. They are ALL pro-Bush and pro-Republican. Isn't it so cute how they all accuse themselves of having a "liberal" bias?????
Slashdot Mirror
The best best may be turning coders into the new "carpenters".
As software tools become standardized, the construction of custom software for the little guy may become cost effective.
What really kills me about outsourcing is that companies don't realize just how they are damaging their future in so many ways.
They realize it, they just DON'T CARE.
See damaging the company is different than damagine THEMSELVES. As long as they get their millions, they don't give a shit.
1) Gut a company.
2) Make Millions.
3) Move on
4) Goto step 1.
I find YOU to be completely disgusting.
Everyone who works a good 8 hours deserves a good wage. The fact that foreign countries have opressed and impovershed their citizens makes their labor no more valuable then that of domestic labor.
All off-shoring to Mexico, India and China does is enrich the masters, not the serfs. They will be paid a LOT more based on their impovershment.
So we in the US are now allowing the tyrannical imporvershment of foreign slave masters to dicatate what AMERICANS should be paid. Fuck that and FUCK YOU!!!!!
Virtually every country on the earth has EVERTHING it needs to be happy, successfull and prosperous. They don't need American dollars. They need higher level of equality and democracy within their societies.
The US isn't perfect, but we have a LOT more class equality then most of the world. I dare say it's much better to be black in America than a Pariah in India!!!!!!
Don't forget were those "brilliant" teachers were originally trained. Right here in the US. Subsidized by the American taxpayer no less.
Q: What do you call 2,000 ad people at the bottom of the sea????
A: A BETTER start!!!!!!
And what did that mean for future generations? They would not have to work 14hrs/day in a textile factory, they went into higher value-added professions, earned more, had more, skill, better education.
Instead, dark people from southern continents work 16 hours in dank textile factories. Sometimes they are supervised by thugs with shotguns.
Negotiate better working conditions, not on your life. We are funding the abuse of these peoples. At the same time, we are impovershing our communities.
We should not trade with countries that do not take human and civil rights seriously.
You're right. Without the means of production, our IP means NOTHING!!!!!
When China is producing half the parts for our military, it will be impossible to contradict the dragon of the east.
India has everything it needs to be successful and prosperous without a SINGLE American dollar.
BTW, it's still possible to have a counting/Auditing system that:
A) Correctly tells the voter WHO they voted for based on the records.
B) Intentionally miscounts and schews the election.
Garbage in, Garbage out. The danger of electronic voting AND counting is that it is VERY succeptable to this type of nonsense. How could anyone tell the difference.
This is why the hand-counters probably have it right.
Then they must clearly be marked REJECTED in indelible ink.
BTW, there are two categories of SPOILED ballots. Ballots rejected by a voter. AND, Ballots wich aren't filled out correctly.
A machine printed ballot could NOT be spoiled by user action. Only REJECTED ballots would need to be kept.
The receipt should contain an alpha-numeric encoding that will show who they voted for. Then they could check an independent system that would decode it and say WHO they voted for.
;-)
;-)
The receipt should also contain a tear off section that only says that they voted and not WHO they voted for. This would be shown to employers if they asked for proof that they voted during their time off.
I agree that the ballot should be secret. If you mapped a hash so that 5-10% of the voters end up with the SAME ID number, you would be in no danger of identifying individuals. Another thing you could do is ask a semi-personal non-sensical question as part of the vote.
What is your favorite color
a) Red, B) Green, C) Blue, D) Pink E) Yellow (ahhhhhh!!!
The "favorite color" bit could be hashed into the voter ID. You would have no way to "read" the voter receipt without knowing their "favorite color". You would not use any "knowable data", only non-relevant questions that wouldn't be recorded.
Like.....
What is your favorite breakfast beverage????
A) Cola B) Juice C) Coffee D) Tea E) Water
Which animal do you like the most????
A) Dog B) Cat C) Horse D) Bird E) Fish
What is your favorite form of recreation???
A) TV B) Reading C) Sports D) Video Games E) Slashdot
etc....
Use the answer to mask the ID. The answer is never recorded with reference to the voter. That way, there is no effective way to repeat the hash unless you knew the "favorite beverage" or whatever for a person you cannot identify.
The Constitution grants states the power to decide HOW they cast their votes. But they must comply with federal law regarding what timeframe they must submit those votes.
Also, certain states (southern) have to clear their election laws with federal courts because of constant abuses to the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
I think that your support of Cynthia McKinney speaks volumes about your ability to choose reliable leaders!
These are the lies of the lazy corporate right biased media.
Greg Palast on Cynthia McKinney Lies
BTW, Al Gore NEVER said he invented the Internet.
More Lies about Al Gore and the Internet
Oh yeah, and Jennifer Flowers is a liar. She never had an affair with Clinton. We just assumed she did because the media told us so.
Jennifer Flowers Can't keep her lies straight
For more instances of the lazy corporate right serving media, see www.dailyhowler.com
For more information on WHY the corporate media is lazy, right biased and overall DUMB, read "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them: A Fair and Balanced look at the Right".
The fact that we vote by states is good. We are after all a Republic. However, the method of the voting leaves something to be desired. It would be nice if there was some measure of proportional voting on the state level.
.62 * 10 = 6.2, round up for 7 electors.
.32 * 10 = 3.2. Round up for 4, since there are only three remaining, he gets the rest.
For example, I tend to vote Democrat and I live in Indiana. One could claim that my vote is wasted because Indiana virtually ALWAYS goes Republican. Even if 49% of Hoosiers vote Democratic, ALL of the Indiana votes go Republican.
I personally believe that a reform of the Electoral college is in order. Electors should be doled out proportionally. Basically the winner takes the error.
So, if you get 57% of the vote. You get AT LEAST 57% of the electors. In a state with 10 electors, you would get 6. Subsequent electors would be distributed accordingly in order of the winner.
Conveniently, Indiana has 10 electors (10 congressman), so it is an exellect example.
Joe Repub 62%
Dave Dem 32%
Green Gary 5%
Ind Ivan 1%
So Joe Repub got 62% of the Vote, he gets AT LEAST 62%.
Dave Dem got 32% of the Vote.
The system goes from "winner takes all" to "winner takes a bit more than his share". This would take emphasis off of the "Big States" like New York, Florida, Texas and California. It would return emphasis to pretty much everybody else. The election would be won by gaining points in MANY states instead of a few points in the BIG states.
It would also encourage voting by a states minority party. For example, California typically ALWAYS goes Democrat in presidential elections. This could discourage Republicans from voting.
The vote would be proportional. At the same time, it would still be a Republic and avoid the COMPLETE quagmire of nationwide recounts.
Finally, small states would NOT lose their voting clout under this plan. Small states would retain their clout or increase it. The reason is that swaying a small number of votes in a small state would swing an elector. A much larger number would be required to sway an elector in a small state.
The ultimate result is that candidates will spend less time in large battleground states and more time across the entire nation trying to pull out those critical votes that will add up to a win.
Apparantly, Daley Sr proudly votes for his son every election ;-)
No seriously, the modern Chicago machine is not one driven by fraud. It's driven by power, influence and the lack of an alternative. In Chicago, even the Republicans are Democrats.
There is no law in the US allowing a state to re-vote for federal elections. It's simply not an option.
In this way, our democracy is weak. If there are obvious examples of shennanigans, other countries can re-vote. There is little risk if the vote was valid, it would simply be a re-run of the previous results. The only risk is that those who spent so much time and effort fixing the elections will lose it AND have all their schemes exposed.
You see, if you WIN the election you fixed, there is little chance you will be punished. The reasons are obvious. You control the prosecutors and hence you can stop any investigation that would reveal your wrong-doing. This is the #1 reason that citizens should be capable of independently pursuing matters of vote fraud through civil courts.
Both Bush's won Florida with TONS of evidence of voting irregularities. Those issues will never be pursued by Florida or the Feds for the simple reason that the Bush's will not allow it.
Some efforts were made by former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney from Atlanta. She got the ChoicePoint CEO to fess up in a congressional inquiry. She was swiftly dealt with in the subsequent election. That is, they poored money into her opponents campaign coffers and made up a bunch of dirty lies against her (as they did against Al Gore).
When the Republicans control the software, it IS a partisan issue.
When the machines are throwing elections on the behalf of Republicans (as happened in Florida 2000), it IS a partisan issue.
Finally, the fact that Republicans are FOR e-voting and Democrats are AGAINST it, ABSOLUETLY makes it a partisan issue. You cannot be Bi-Partisan if the other party doesn't agree.
Agreed,
Democrats are not Saints. They too have been known to play tricks with elections.
In a democracy, manipulating the vote is comparable to heresy. It should be amongst the highest crimes.
I say a minimum of 20 years in jail for anyone caught willfully manipulating an election. In democracy, voting is sacred.
If a Democrat is caught with his hand in the cookie jar, he should be hung from the same branch as a Republican.
Oh yeah, and the CEOs of those companies are Bush "Pioneers". Meaning they have raised over $100,000 for the Bush election committee.
Here's the process:
1) Fund raiser collects a bunch of money for Bush.
2) Fund raiser is rewarded with legislation forcing municipalities to buy the equipment from said fundraiser.
3) Fund raiser profits AND directly begins manipulating the election for said president.
4) Fund raiser is further rewarded with jobs from third parties.
The bitch is that most of this is perfectly legal.
Under World Trade Organization rules, this would effectively be illegal. It would unnecessarily contstrain trade.
Why????? It would constrain the ability of Bangalore programming firms to do work for American voting systems.
Just an indication that corporate rule isn't mearly meant for the US, it is intended for the whole world.
I think Diebold has EXACTLY the right people in place for their intentions. People who have experience in fraud and computer tampering.
If you wish to steal elections, who better to hire than thieves.
He didn't publicly announce it. It was part in conjunction with fund-raising.
The issue is whether he has a conflict of interest. Can you be professional at the same time as doing "everything possible" to make sure that Bush is the winner? Could Katherine Harris do this in Florida?????
To quote deep throat "These people really aren't that bright". They are simply rich and influential. They are willing to trade their values for personal power and influence. There is nothing about this that requires high intelligence or Machievellien sensibilities.
Of course, when you effectively control the press, your tongue can be a lot looser. Your allies will squash the stories that aren't conducive to your agenda. They will also lie virulentally about your opponents (Al Gore NEVER said that he invented the internet. Never said that he was an inspiration for Love Story (even though he WAS)).
The Gerbil's method of propaganda is the one of the day. Repeat your lies, squash your opponents, invent an enemy, then take the people's freedoms with their enthusiastic consent.
Agreed.
It's becoming increasingly clear that our demoncracy is under assault from a hunta that wants to end it.
The big difference is they want to maintain the appearance that we are a democracy. What better way than pure electronic voting that can be manipulated at will with no possibility of auditing.
BTW, the evidence that Bush was negligent with his domestic security policy is growing. One could make the case that Bush WANTED a terrorist attack so he could infringe freedom in the interest of "defending" democracy.
Bush's demeanor on 9/11 is nothing short of bizarre. An airliner smashes into the World Trade Center and he decides to go read about Giddy the Goat to a bunch of kindegartners. The look on his face when he's told about the second crash is nothing short of vacuous. It proves nothing but makes one wonder exactly what was going through that skull.
The Patriot acts are proof enough that he cares nothing of freedom. So is holding American citizens incommunicado as "foreign enemy combatants". Thank goodness that this was recently held unconstitutional. The next step would be "dissapearing" people who disagreed with the administration.
It would require the bosses at these mega-corporations to care about something other than their bottom line.
The system is delivering the change they want. President Bush is mowing down the laws protecting consumers from big business and big media. They are ALL pro-Bush and pro-Republican. Isn't it so cute how they all accuse themselves of having a "liberal" bias?????
Instant Run-off is 100% possible with traditional paper and pencil.
It simply requires a different form of tabulation.