"Look at dongles and other systems, they tend to be cracked. As long as you can snoop what's going on in the PC you can generally find a way of reading and injecting the required code.
"Also what happens if your server in another country goes down and you can't get an engineer to sort it out as there's no local smartcard? why you use remote login with a smartcard. Therefore your access code will be sent down the Internet/VPN."
That's not how these systems work. It's a challenge/response system. The password is never sent. Instead, they send a packet *encrypted* with the password hash to the smart card. The smart card then decrypts the packet and uses the encryption key inside to encrypt a packet of its own.
Yes, the system can be beaten. Given a couple months and a formidable hardware array, one can brute force the password. That's why you are supposed to change passwords every month or so...to replace any that might have been brute forced in the past.
"Something I know is also less likely to get stolen, so long as noone has a keylogger installed on my computer."
It makes more sense to enter the password directly into the smart card (think keypad, like a wallet calculator). Then you are secure even if there is a key logger on the computer.
"Your print is yours, you just need to show your finger to prove it, and you're the only person who can do that."
This is why biometrics are fine as a second level defense at places where the primary defense is a guard standing there (who should be able to recognize you). However, it is useless at places where authentication is anonymous otherwise: for example, at an ATM or a gas station (stolen credit cards are often used for the purchase of fuel for exactly this reason). Yes, you would still be able to go in to the bank or to the attendant (if the gas station has one; I've used corporate stations that did not; further, I've heard that they are common in high minimum wage countries) to authenticate, but you would lose the convenience of the ATM or pay at the pump fueling.
"How about a combination unit that uses my biometric data to unlock stored, encrypted, highly random passwords?"
This was my thought as well. Have the *smart card* data locked to your biometrics. Then, you are the only one who can use your smart card, even if stolen. If they steal your biometrics (which you may not know), they can only use them to unlock your smart card. If your smart card is stolen (you should be able to miss it), cancel it.
You can even increase security by adding a single access password to this. Then, they need to steal smart card, biometrics, *and* password. So long as the password and biometric are entered directly into the smart card, this should be very secure. Plus cancellable in the case of compromise.
In the US, the concept behind awarding patents is that the monopoly awarded will encourage research and development. You can see this by reading the clause authorizing it in the Constitution, which is the same clause as authorizes copyright. The disclosure is an addendum.
This is not to say that "willful infringement" is not broken, just to say that this doesn't necessarily conflict with the intents of the founders. It is also worth noting that the problems with patents granted exacerbate this. Most software patents are so vague that reading them does not bring one closer to understanding how to accomplish the task. As such, these patents should be rejected for not adding to the art.
You should have read further. Your parent also said, "Does anyone use the patent database like this? No. Especially not with software patents. In fact, in every corporation I know of the attorneys explicitly tell developers *not* to search the patent database, as it's generally better to remain ignorant, both to avoid allegations of 'willfull' infringement, and also because it's just a waste of time. Most patents are contestable anyway, and even for the ones that might hold up in court it's generally more cost-effective to just cross-license using your own patent arsenal."
"How could I afford to spend the time fighting for the validity of a patent against, say, Microsoft?"
As someone else pointed out, how can you now? The simple answer is that you can't. Instead, you sell the patent to someone who can enforce it. Or you find yourself an ambulance chaser^W^Wlawyer who will work for commission.
With the new system, the patent review should be cheaper than a patent infringement prosecution is now. Further, if you have a well crafted patent, it should stand for itself. Then you have very little need to spend time defending the application.
If you need to do more, there are some things that one could do to make the system easier on individuals and small businesses: for example, if the patent review upholds the patent, perhaps the patent office should be the ones to defend that decision in court. That would save the patenter considerably in court costs.
This seems like a good place to post my suggestion, which is composed of the following pieces:
1. Patent applications which are published immediately and with only a nominal fee (to cover clerical costs of processing).
2. All patent infringement claims must be made through the USPTO. This avoids the problem of an extortionist coming in and saying, "Hi, we're IBM. We have a million patents. Give us some money, and we won't litigate you into non-existence."
3. Offer to do a patent review if the defendant wishes. In the patent review, *both* sides have the ability to offer up evidence. They would also each be able to view the other's evidence, prior to the hearing.
4. To discourage unfounded patent infringement challenges and patent reviews, make the loser pay for the review. It is expected that this will be somewhat more expensive than a patent application is currently but much less expensive than challenges and reviews currently are. If this is insufficient incentive, further cost shifting could be done. For example, they could charge the loser with the legal costs that the winner incurred.
5. The decision can be reviewed by the courts (just as patents are now). A possibility is to make the patent office defend its position in front of the courts when this happens. This would be an extra incentive to make solid decisions in a review.
This would not necessarily cause a decrease in frivolous patent *applications*. However, it should reduce the impact of them, because they would be harder to enforce than proper applications. Further, it gives more incentive to properly form the application with reasonable claims, as a badly formed claim can prevent enforcement. The current system actually encourages patent claims to be overblown, as they can resubmit the patent (revised patents are more likely to go through than original patents) until it just barely passes with the widest possible claims. Under this system, they should prefer more limited claims that are possible to enforce.
The biggest difference about this would be that the two parties each have an incentive (and presumably the technical know-how, since both can make products using this technology) to provide the best arguments for both accepting and rejecting the patent. The patent office's duty is reduced to evaluating the argument.
"How 'bout a fixed, limited number of patents? Companies/individuals/organizations can bid on filed patents & the top $N grossing patents are granted to the winners"
How is this better than scrapping the system entirely? The theory behind patents is that people would not otherwise go to the work of inventing and disclosing that invention without the patent. Thus, they need the extra incentive of a monopoly to do the innovation. This would reduce that in some cases and eliminate it in others (those who won't pay the patent price).
This would exacerbate one of the existing problems: patents are tools primarily of the wealthy. Prosecuting or defending a patent infringement case takes millions of dollars. At least now, an individual or small business could get the patent and then sell it to someone who can enforce it. Under this system, big players (Microsoft, Amazon, IBM) get everything they have now, plus protection from small players (Eolas).
"Innovation is promoted when ideas are disclosed."
I have asked this previously, but it is worth asking again: Can anyone give an example of a patent that was used by someone else to develop a later innovation? How often does this happen?
If you talk to actual people who work on potentially patentable innovations, they will tell you that they *don't* read patents. Why? Because being aware of a patent increases the damages that can be collected if you are infringing. If people aren't reading patents, then what good is the disclosure?
Patent rules may actually prevent useful disclosure in some circumstances. Prior publication is supposed to preclude patenting. As such, people who might seek patents are well advised to hold off publication until they determine patentability.
It is also worth noting that many patents would have had all relevant information disclosed anyway. For example, "one click shopping." To use it, Amazon would have had to disclose its existence. Given its existence, it is then obvious that one needs to use a cookie or session ID to key access to information stored on the server (the bulk of the patent claims).
"It's implied. Patents become public as soon as they are granted."
No, it's not. Read it again. There is nothing about making patents public in it. This is an after the fact, legislative adjustment. It is a limited time monopoly granted because people might otherwise not innovate. Patents are certainly *implemented* with disclosure; however, this is not part of the constitutional authorization for them. A patent system without disclosure would be constitutional.
"I understand Lawyers get paid whether they win or not."
Depends on what kind of job it is. For example, personal injury lawyers (e.g. Edwards) only get paid if they win. Criminal lawyers get paid regardless. It's also worth noting that many lawyers never "win;" they simply write contracts, wills, applications, etc.
From the constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8): "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Nothing about disclosure. Regardless of the purpose in the rest of the world, in the US, patents are to promote innovation.
What gets me is that they not only can't figure out what tires I purchased at other Wal-Marts, they can't even tell when I'm at the original store where I purchased the tires.
All that data and they can't use it for things that would really be worthwhile to me, like warranty claims. Maybe that's why I don't buy tires there anymore...
The problem with electric trains is that it is easy for the father to get overly helpful. My grandfather bought my uncle a train set for Christmas one year. He was setting it up and fooling around with it. Hours later, my uncle asked him, "Daddy, can I play with your train set?"
The claim is that the exit polls in the 6 states of that chart with eVoting had noticeable skew that could not be explained by bad methodology. What I'm asking is if the other 41 states showed the same skew or not? In other words, do the other 41 states look like the 3 states without eVoting or the 6 states with eVoting?
It's also interesting to note that in Florida, it wasn't the eVoting counties that seemed to indicate this skew; it was the non-eVoting counties.
Disregarding the results in the other 41 states is showing the bias of the person who put together those graphs. Starting by deciding what you want to prove and then picking the data that supports it is an inherently bad methodology.
"The "budget surplus" was a big hoax; smoke and mirrors Enron style accounting which was so popular at the time. When everything was actually accounted for, there was no real surplus."
You talk like they stopped the BS accounting when Bush took office. They didn't. Now, not only is there the deficit that was hidden in the 90s, there is also the deficit that they were unable to hide. In 2000, the deficit was $23 billion with $240 billion hidden by the trust fund surpluses (making it look like a $220 billion surplus). In 2004, this comes to roughly $700 billion total, $220 billion of which is hidden. Numbers from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hi st.pdf
That's all irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The question is if a high deficit is causing a shortage of investment capital that keeps companies from hiring. An interesting hypothesis, but the general consensus is that recessions are characterized by an investment *surplus* (people are reluctant to spend money because they may lose their income) combined with a demand shortage. This is why a deficit is a recommended response to a recession--to shift investment funds to consumption.
It is worth noting that the reverse situation exists normally (when not in a recession). Running deficits then creates a consumption surplus and uses resources that would otherwise be available for private investment (someone buying government bonds is interested in investment; if not government bonds, they would invest elsewhere).
Or Best Buy could just stop trying to fool their customers into thinking that they are getting a deal when they are really being screwed over. If Best Buy did not have crazy rebates, then they wouldn't be having people abuse them.
It's like how Microsoft claims to lose money on each XBox sold. If people buying XBoxes to use as MythTV frontends costs Microsoft money, then maybe Microsoft should quit subsidizing the XBox. Problem solved.
Personally, I think that customers buying Best Buy products purely for the rebates is great. It helps make up for the fact that 80+% of all rebates go unredeemed. Note that even if you subtract out the returned products from the sales and still include those rebates as redeemed, they still make up a redemption rate of less than 50%. Perhaps Best Buy will eventually drop rebates and just lower their ridiculous prices! Or they will just go out of business and I will continue to buy from Circuit City and the web. Either way works for me.
"Even if the anomalies were not were not enough to alter the outcome of the election, they may be enough to change who has the majority of the popular vote, which would affect the moral authority of the president."
Except that the popular vote was much more lopsided than the electoral vote. It would take errors of 3.5 million or so to change the popular vote. We could change the electoral vote with a mere 43K spread over the right places (New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa) or about 140K in a single state (Ohio).
The issue with the anomalies is not the effect that they are having in this election. The issue is that the next election may be close enough that the anomalies *would* matter. Why not fix the problems now, rather than *after* they affect an election. If Dole had complained about the votes he lost in '96 and the butterfly ballot had been corrected, Gore would have won Florida and the electoral college in 2000 (assuming everything else stayed the same). Let's not make the same mistake in preparation for the 2008 elections. Let's fix the problems now.
Why isn't there a national law against using the n word to refer to someone who is black? Would it be that difficult?
Is it really so hard?
Of course not, just unconstitutional. Just like a national ballot/machine.
Plus there are other considerations. For example, my ballot had seven more pages after the President. I voted for a senator (statewide); a House member (local); a state senator (local); a state representative (local); various county officials, e.g. sheriff (local); some judges (local); four ballot initiatives (one statewide; three local). Thus, my ballot would still have to look different from your ballot.
Finally, what makes you think a national system would be better? It's more likely that the national system would have just as many problems as the county systems of today. Plus, places like Las Vegas would not have the ability to use better ballots. They would be stuck with the same flawed system as the rest of us.
"I've written several members of my state congress asking about possible bills for requirements of electronic voting machines, such as the all-so-important paper trail."
Be careful in this. Ohio already *has* a law requiring a paper trail. However, they have interpreted this to mean only that a printout needs to be generated at the *end* of the night. Further, if the paper trail is not verified by the voter, then it is meaningless. The fraudster could simply have the machine print out different results from those entered by the voter.
In support of your other point: flawed ballots in Florida cost Dole votes in '96 but did not affect the election. In 2000, the same problem did cost Gore the election. In 2004, we already have an error that was clearly in Bush's favor (to the tune of 3893 votes) in Ohio. No, it did not affect the final result; however, in a *future* election, that error could be the difference between victory and defeat. In fact, the margin's in New Mexico and Florida in 2000 were smaller than this error.
At least that error was correctable. In North Carolina, roughly 4000 votes were lost. Not enough to change the Presidential race (and more likely to hurt than help Bush, seeing as how NC went to him overall), but a similar sized error could affect future elections.
Slashdot Mirror
"Look at dongles and other systems, they tend to be cracked. As long as you can snoop what's going on in the PC you can generally find a way of reading and injecting the required code.
"Also what happens if your server in another country goes down and you can't get an engineer to sort it out as there's no local smartcard? why you use remote login with a smartcard. Therefore your access code will be sent down the Internet/VPN."
That's not how these systems work. It's a challenge/response system. The password is never sent. Instead, they send a packet *encrypted* with the password hash to the smart card. The smart card then decrypts the packet and uses the encryption key inside to encrypt a packet of its own.
Yes, the system can be beaten. Given a couple months and a formidable hardware array, one can brute force the password. That's why you are supposed to change passwords every month or so...to replace any that might have been brute forced in the past.
"Something I know is also less likely to get stolen, so long as noone has a keylogger installed on my computer."
It makes more sense to enter the password directly into the smart card (think keypad, like a wallet calculator). Then you are secure even if there is a key logger on the computer.
"Your print is yours, you just need to show your finger to prove it, and you're the only person who can do that."
This is why biometrics are fine as a second level defense at places where the primary defense is a guard standing there (who should be able to recognize you). However, it is useless at places where authentication is anonymous otherwise: for example, at an ATM or a gas station (stolen credit cards are often used for the purchase of fuel for exactly this reason). Yes, you would still be able to go in to the bank or to the attendant (if the gas station has one; I've used corporate stations that did not; further, I've heard that they are common in high minimum wage countries) to authenticate, but you would lose the convenience of the ATM or pay at the pump fueling.
"How about a combination unit that uses my biometric data to unlock stored, encrypted, highly random passwords?"
This was my thought as well. Have the *smart card* data locked to your biometrics. Then, you are the only one who can use your smart card, even if stolen. If they steal your biometrics (which you may not know), they can only use them to unlock your smart card. If your smart card is stolen (you should be able to miss it), cancel it.
You can even increase security by adding a single access password to this. Then, they need to steal smart card, biometrics, *and* password. So long as the password and biometric are entered directly into the smart card, this should be very secure. Plus cancellable in the case of compromise.
"the original concept of awarding patents"
In the US, the concept behind awarding patents is that the monopoly awarded will encourage research and development. You can see this by reading the clause authorizing it in the Constitution, which is the same clause as authorizes copyright. The disclosure is an addendum.
This is not to say that "willful infringement" is not broken, just to say that this doesn't necessarily conflict with the intents of the founders. It is also worth noting that the problems with patents granted exacerbate this. Most software patents are so vague that reading them does not bring one closer to understanding how to accomplish the task. As such, these patents should be rejected for not adding to the art.
"the finest spreadsheet app I ever used was Lotus Improv"
I loved Improv as well, but on Windows 3.1 rather than NeXT. Neat to see it mentioned.
You should have read further. Your parent also said, "Does anyone use the patent database like this? No. Especially not with software patents. In fact, in every corporation I know of the attorneys explicitly tell developers *not* to search the patent database, as it's generally better to remain ignorant, both to avoid allegations of 'willfull' infringement, and also because it's just a waste of time. Most patents are contestable anyway, and even for the ones that might hold up in court it's generally more cost-effective to just cross-license using your own patent arsenal."
"How could I afford to spend the time fighting for the validity of a patent against, say, Microsoft?"
As someone else pointed out, how can you now? The simple answer is that you can't. Instead, you sell the patent to someone who can enforce it. Or you find yourself an ambulance chaser^W^Wlawyer who will work for commission.
With the new system, the patent review should be cheaper than a patent infringement prosecution is now. Further, if you have a well crafted patent, it should stand for itself. Then you have very little need to spend time defending the application.
If you need to do more, there are some things that one could do to make the system easier on individuals and small businesses: for example, if the patent review upholds the patent, perhaps the patent office should be the ones to defend that decision in court. That would save the patenter considerably in court costs.
This seems like a good place to post my suggestion, which is composed of the following pieces:
1. Patent applications which are published immediately and with only a nominal fee (to cover clerical costs of processing).
2. All patent infringement claims must be made through the USPTO. This avoids the problem of an extortionist coming in and saying, "Hi, we're IBM. We have a million patents. Give us some money, and we won't litigate you into non-existence."
3. Offer to do a patent review if the defendant wishes. In the patent review, *both* sides have the ability to offer up evidence. They would also each be able to view the other's evidence, prior to the hearing.
4. To discourage unfounded patent infringement challenges and patent reviews, make the loser pay for the review. It is expected that this will be somewhat more expensive than a patent application is currently but much less expensive than challenges and reviews currently are. If this is insufficient incentive, further cost shifting could be done. For example, they could charge the loser with the legal costs that the winner incurred.
5. The decision can be reviewed by the courts (just as patents are now). A possibility is to make the patent office defend its position in front of the courts when this happens. This would be an extra incentive to make solid decisions in a review.
This would not necessarily cause a decrease in frivolous patent *applications*. However, it should reduce the impact of them, because they would be harder to enforce than proper applications. Further, it gives more incentive to properly form the application with reasonable claims, as a badly formed claim can prevent enforcement. The current system actually encourages patent claims to be overblown, as they can resubmit the patent (revised patents are more likely to go through than original patents) until it just barely passes with the widest possible claims. Under this system, they should prefer more limited claims that are possible to enforce.
The biggest difference about this would be that the two parties each have an incentive (and presumably the technical know-how, since both can make products using this technology) to provide the best arguments for both accepting and rejecting the patent. The patent office's duty is reduced to evaluating the argument.
"How 'bout a fixed, limited number of patents? Companies/individuals/organizations can bid on filed patents & the top $N grossing patents are granted to the winners"
How is this better than scrapping the system entirely? The theory behind patents is that people would not otherwise go to the work of inventing and disclosing that invention without the patent. Thus, they need the extra incentive of a monopoly to do the innovation. This would reduce that in some cases and eliminate it in others (those who won't pay the patent price).
This would exacerbate one of the existing problems: patents are tools primarily of the wealthy. Prosecuting or defending a patent infringement case takes millions of dollars. At least now, an individual or small business could get the patent and then sell it to someone who can enforce it. Under this system, big players (Microsoft, Amazon, IBM) get everything they have now, plus protection from small players (Eolas).
"Innovation is promoted when ideas are disclosed."
I have asked this previously, but it is worth asking again: Can anyone give an example of a patent that was used by someone else to develop a later innovation? How often does this happen?
If you talk to actual people who work on potentially patentable innovations, they will tell you that they *don't* read patents. Why? Because being aware of a patent increases the damages that can be collected if you are infringing. If people aren't reading patents, then what good is the disclosure?
Patent rules may actually prevent useful disclosure in some circumstances. Prior publication is supposed to preclude patenting. As such, people who might seek patents are well advised to hold off publication until they determine patentability.
It is also worth noting that many patents would have had all relevant information disclosed anyway. For example, "one click shopping." To use it, Amazon would have had to disclose its existence. Given its existence, it is then obvious that one needs to use a cookie or session ID to key access to information stored on the server (the bulk of the patent claims).
"It's implied. Patents become public as soon as they are granted."
No, it's not. Read it again. There is nothing about making patents public in it. This is an after the fact, legislative adjustment. It is a limited time monopoly granted because people might otherwise not innovate. Patents are certainly *implemented* with disclosure; however, this is not part of the constitutional authorization for them. A patent system without disclosure would be constitutional.
"I understand Lawyers get paid whether they win or not."
Depends on what kind of job it is. For example, personal injury lawyers (e.g. Edwards) only get paid if they win. Criminal lawyers get paid regardless. It's also worth noting that many lawyers never "win;" they simply write contracts, wills, applications, etc.
From the constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8): "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Nothing about disclosure. Regardless of the purpose in the rest of the world, in the US, patents are to promote innovation.
What gets me is that they not only can't figure out what tires I purchased at other Wal-Marts, they can't even tell when I'm at the original store where I purchased the tires.
All that data and they can't use it for things that would really be worthwhile to me, like warranty claims. Maybe that's why I don't buy tires there anymore...
"Re: Aspirin. You may be right"
Bayer lost Aspirin to Sterling Drug after WW1. It was owned by Sterling Drug when it became a generic term. So both are right. Aspirin was a genericized trademark, but that's not how Bayer lost it.
More examples of genericized trademarks.
"why would they track something like this in the remote and not just the unit itself?"
Perhaps because you mute the *TV*, not the DVR?
The problem with electric trains is that it is easy for the father to get overly helpful. My grandfather bought my uncle a train set for Christmas one year. He was setting it up and fooling around with it. Hours later, my uncle asked him, "Daddy, can I play with your train set?"
"MSN must be using a very similar algorithm."
You are not the only one saying that Microsoft is copying Google. Basically, they are indexing whatever Google does. Apparently they didn't have enough content of their own.
The claim is that the exit polls in the 6 states of that chart with eVoting had noticeable skew that could not be explained by bad methodology. What I'm asking is if the other 41 states showed the same skew or not? In other words, do the other 41 states look like the 3 states without eVoting or the 6 states with eVoting?
It's also interesting to note that in Florida, it wasn't the eVoting counties that seemed to indicate this skew; it was the non-eVoting counties.
Disregarding the results in the other 41 states is showing the bias of the person who put together those graphs. Starting by deciding what you want to prove and then picking the data that supports it is an inherently bad methodology.
"The "budget surplus" was a big hoax; smoke and mirrors Enron style accounting which was so popular at the time. When everything was actually accounted for, there was no real surplus."
i st.pdf
You talk like they stopped the BS accounting when Bush took office. They didn't. Now, not only is there the deficit that was hidden in the 90s, there is also the deficit that they were unable to hide. In 2000, the deficit was $23 billion with $240 billion hidden by the trust fund surpluses (making it look like a $220 billion surplus). In 2004, this comes to roughly $700 billion total, $220 billion of which is hidden. Numbers from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/h
That's all irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The question is if a high deficit is causing a shortage of investment capital that keeps companies from hiring. An interesting hypothesis, but the general consensus is that recessions are characterized by an investment *surplus* (people are reluctant to spend money because they may lose their income) combined with a demand shortage. This is why a deficit is a recommended response to a recession--to shift investment funds to consumption.
It is worth noting that the reverse situation exists normally (when not in a recession). Running deficits then creates a consumption surplus and uses resources that would otherwise be available for private investment (someone buying government bonds is interested in investment; if not government bonds, they would invest elsewhere).
"These are customers that should be weeded out."
Or Best Buy could just stop trying to fool their customers into thinking that they are getting a deal when they are really being screwed over. If Best Buy did not have crazy rebates, then they wouldn't be having people abuse them.
It's like how Microsoft claims to lose money on each XBox sold. If people buying XBoxes to use as MythTV frontends costs Microsoft money, then maybe Microsoft should quit subsidizing the XBox. Problem solved.
Personally, I think that customers buying Best Buy products purely for the rebates is great. It helps make up for the fact that 80+% of all rebates go unredeemed. Note that even if you subtract out the returned products from the sales and still include those rebates as redeemed, they still make up a redemption rate of less than 50%. Perhaps Best Buy will eventually drop rebates and just lower their ridiculous prices! Or they will just go out of business and I will continue to buy from Circuit City and the web. Either way works for me.
"Even if the anomalies were not were not enough to alter the outcome of the election, they may be enough to change who has the majority of the popular vote, which would affect the moral authority of the president."
Except that the popular vote was much more lopsided than the electoral vote. It would take errors of 3.5 million or so to change the popular vote. We could change the electoral vote with a mere 43K spread over the right places (New Mexico, Nevada, Iowa) or about 140K in a single state (Ohio).
The issue with the anomalies is not the effect that they are having in this election. The issue is that the next election may be close enough that the anomalies *would* matter. Why not fix the problems now, rather than *after* they affect an election. If Dole had complained about the votes he lost in '96 and the butterfly ballot had been corrected, Gore would have won Florida and the electoral college in 2000 (assuming everything else stayed the same). Let's not make the same mistake in preparation for the 2008 elections. Let's fix the problems now.
Why isn't there a national law against using the n word to refer to someone who is black? Would it be that difficult?
Is it really so hard?
Of course not, just unconstitutional. Just like a national ballot/machine.
Plus there are other considerations. For example, my ballot had seven more pages after the President. I voted for a senator (statewide); a House member (local); a state senator (local); a state representative (local); various county officials, e.g. sheriff (local); some judges (local); four ballot initiatives (one statewide; three local). Thus, my ballot would still have to look different from your ballot.
Finally, what makes you think a national system would be better? It's more likely that the national system would have just as many problems as the county systems of today. Plus, places like Las Vegas would not have the ability to use better ballots. They would be stuck with the same flawed system as the rest of us.
"I've written several members of my state congress asking about possible bills for requirements of electronic voting machines, such as the all-so-important paper trail."
Be careful in this. Ohio already *has* a law requiring a paper trail. However, they have interpreted this to mean only that a printout needs to be generated at the *end* of the night. Further, if the paper trail is not verified by the voter, then it is meaningless. The fraudster could simply have the machine print out different results from those entered by the voter.
In support of your other point: flawed ballots in Florida cost Dole votes in '96 but did not affect the election. In 2000, the same problem did cost Gore the election. In 2004, we already have an error that was clearly in Bush's favor (to the tune of 3893 votes) in Ohio. No, it did not affect the final result; however, in a *future* election, that error could be the difference between victory and defeat. In fact, the margin's in New Mexico and Florida in 2000 were smaller than this error.
At least that error was correctable. In North Carolina, roughly 4000 votes were lost. Not enough to change the Presidential race (and more likely to hurt than help Bush, seeing as how NC went to him overall), but a similar sized error could affect future elections.