nocomment's Journal: electronic voting systems article

I just went through this article about voting machines.

I don't really see the big deal. Maybe someone else can help me out here.

The way I read it, some company was decertified as a voting machine tester because it's using undocumented, piss-poor procedures for doing so, said company has said they will fix those problems, and when they do they will be re-certified.

Am I missing the part where this is news-worthy?

Lax testing and little oversight

[L-Train8]

Did you read the article or just the blurb? It says that the testing company approved millions of electronic voting machines that are now in use. The problems - lax quality control, no documentation of testing, etc - that got the company decertified may have been going on during the time when those millions of machines were approved. So a ton of voting machines that were supposedly certified as reliable and accurate may have had no proper testing at all.

The article also discusses the problems in the testing

Re:

[pudge]

It says that the testing company approved millions of electronic voting machines that are now in use. The problems - lax quality control, no documentation of testing, etc - that got the company decertified may have been going on during the time when those millions of machines were approved. So a ton of voting machines that were supposedly certified as reliable and accurate may have had no proper testing at all.

Right, that's the biggest part of it: it reduces our potential trust in the machines that were actually used in the election.

(NB: if the Republicans had won the elections in 2006, you would right now be reading tons of stories about how this is more evidence the Republicans stole the elections. Not that it matters, but it's just annoying to think about how this would be exploited for partisanship even though -- as we see, since the GOP didn't win! -- there's no evidence this was actually exploited for par

Re:

[John M W 321]

The fact that the Republicans lost plenty of races is no evidence that they did not hack those races. Any more than the fact that they won plenty of races is evidence that they did hack those races.

Re:

[pudge]

The fact that the Republicans lost plenty of races is no evidence that they did not hack those races.

Actually, yes, it is. It is not proof they did not "hack" those races, but it is evidence.

Re:

[John M W 321]

You need either a dictionary, or a course in logic, or both. Since some or all of the voting machines in election can be either hacked or not, and the outcome of the election can be either a win or loss of the side favored by the hacking, the outcome is no evidence of the hacking. Where they lost, they might have hacked- and lost by less. What we have here is evidence of your supposition.

Re:

[pudge]

You need either a dictionary, or a course in logic, or both.

False on all counts.

Since some or all of the voting machines in election can be either hacked or not, and the outcome of the election can be either a win or loss of the side favored by the hacking, the outcome is no evidence of the hacking.

False. You do not know what evidence is. It's a simple formulation. Here is one that may make sense to you. It makes perfect sense, but I hope you are able to understand it.

We find a bloody glove at the scene of the crime. It is the same style and brand that you own, and you cannot account for where your own glove is. We say this is evidence you committed the crime. Maybe you didn't actually commit the crime, but still, this is evidence you did.

Now let's say the Republicans had w

Re:

[John M W 321]

I am curious as to why you foe'd me without warning. Maybe you should change the software so foes can not respond in threads having an entry by a foe'er.

Re:

[pudge]

I am curious as to why you foe'd me without warning.

I explained why I foe'd you, in a response to you.

Maybe you should change the software so foes can not respond in threads having an entry by a foe'er.

No, I should not.

Re:

[John M W 321]

Gosh, I hate to continue this thread here- it does not belong here. You might think about the difference between "warning" and "explaining", and the fact that by foe'ing me without warning as you did, you forbade me from responding to your assumptions and allegations where you made them. I notice that "normally" you do warn people you eventually foe; but not in the case of foe'ing me. If you choose not to un-foe me so that I can respond where courtesy to "no comment" dictates I should, we can say good-by

Re:

[John M W 321]

Life is funny. After basically posting that the Republican loss of some elections means the Republicans must not have hacked voting (loss of elections is evidence of innocence of hacking), pudge suggests in his journal that no one should suggest that high temperatures in the Northeast support global warming (high temperatures are not evidence of global warming).

Just funny.

Re:

[pudge]

Life is funny. After basically posting that the Republican loss of some elections means the Republicans must not have hacked voting (loss of elections is evidence of innocence of hacking), pudge suggests in his journal that no one should suggest that high temperatures in the Northeast support global warming (high temperatures are not evidence of global warming).

Wow. You lie about what I wrote about the elections, and then you find it odd that I posted something that is 100% factually true?

Odd.

Even if you're not js7a, I was still clearly right to foe you.

Re:

[John M W 321]

First things first:

You lie about what I wrote about the elections

If this [slashdot.org] does not say what I thought it does, then I certainly made a mistake and owe you an apology. But I think it would be hard for any reasonable person to find my characterization of your writing there as a lie.

Re:

[pudge]

If this [slashdot.org] does not say what I thought it does, then I certainly made a mistake

If? You wrote that I posted that "the Republican loss of some elections means the Republicans must not have hacked voting." That is a lie. I said it was EVIDENCE not PROOF. Your words "must not have hacked" necessarily implies "proof." You lied.

You do not owe me an apology, because I wouldn't accept it anyway.

Re:

[pudge]

Let's see here; I said:

After basically posting that the Republican loss of some elections means the Republicans must not have hacked voting (loss of elections is evidence of innocence of hacking)"

While you quoted out that of context (leaving out the key phrase of "basically posting"

I did not "basically post" any such thing. I specifically denied, in that discussion, that I posted that. I was very clear that I did not intend to mean "must not have hacked."

and the restating of what you basically posted, that is what you said

Stop lying.

I hope you can accept it as an honest error.

Since you repeated the "error" directly above saying again that I "basically posted" something I did not, no, I cannot accept that. I cannot deny the facts in front of me to accept that. Who am I going to believe, you, or my lying eyes?

Re:

[John M W 321]

You are really a trip. See you! ;-)