Indecision 2002 652
The most common story submission about the U.S. elections held today seems to be that the consortium which typically conducts and reports exit polls has encountered technical difficulties. If only they'd had an open beta program... There have also been a number of stories highlighting problems with new electronic voting machines, a topic Slashdot has hit several times in the past. CNN, the NY Times, and essentially every other U.S. news outfit are following the election results as best they can.
MARIJUANA IN NEVADA!!! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:MARIJUANA IN NEVADA!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:MARIJUANA IN NEVADA!!! (Score:3, Funny)
89% of voters polled said they supported legalizing Marijuana.
34% of supporters forgot to vote
13% supported legalization, but picked the wrong option
22% of supporters were unable to make it from the couch to the voting booth, collapsing at differing points between.
18% of supporters were too unmotivated to leave the house
7% were unable to complete the ballot due to incredibly poor depth perception
6% entered the voting booth, but forgot why they were there and thought they were in the shower
13% of those who thought they were in the shower began masturbating
Re:MARIJUANA IN NEVADA!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I think the whole thing is silly anyways, there's more important things to worry about than one's ability to get high. Besides, people will do it regardless of the law anyway.
Re:MARIJUANA IN NEVADA!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't get the chance to vote on Federal law(only a few people to vote for us that only a majority of us chose), and when we DO get the chance to vote (State laws) they don't count worth a shit.
Something to think about.
Re:MARIJUANA IN NEVADA!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Your belief that people will do it anyway is right on the money. So why punish them? It is an actual victimless crime.
Re:MARIJUANA IN NEVADA!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:MARIJUANA IN NEVADA!!! (Score:2)
We'll see. I hope it passes. Not because I want to smoke pot (hell, I'm 21 and haven't ever had drink of alchohol), but because I think its an issue that really should really be up to the states themselves.
Re:MARIJUANA IN NEVADA!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Interstate? (Score:4, Insightful)
a state can't legalize something that is federally outlawed.
The federal government can't outlaw commerce within a state, can it? According to the U.S. Constitution, article 1 [cornell.edu], "The Congress shall have power ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes ... To declare war ... To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers" (my emphasis). The 10th Amendment [cornell.edu] gives the states the right to regulate anything not in Congress's exclusive domain. (The 14th Amendment limits that slightly by applying most of the Bill of Rights to the states.)
If banning beverages containing ethanol required an amendment to the Constitution [cornell.edu], then how can Congress get away with banning pot? That should be the State of Nevada's right to put on the ballot.
Case law citations welcome.
Case Law: Interstate commerce regulation (Score:4, Insightful)
nearly all laws congress makes that seem to have no authority to to do so, are based on this precedent. The intra-state activity could effect inter-state commerce. But this has been streteched to the breaking point. For example, why is it a federal crime to use a hand gun near a school, or to commit a "hate" crime. there is nothing in the constitution that seems to permit this.
scooby snacks all around!
Wickard v. Filburn may not strictly apply (Score:3, Informative)
owned his own land, consumed his own food, raised his own seed and even made his own farming implements. Yet when he grew a federally banned crop they cracked down.
Wickard v. Filburn [fff.org] was not about a banned crop but rather about private growth and consumption competing with a rationed crop. Marijuana, on the other hand, is banned; therefore, the precedent may not strictly apply.
Besides, the Lopez case seems to represent a turnaround in the Supreme Court's view of the loose interpretation of Congress's enumerated powers. A win for the "good guys" in Eldred v. Ashcroft [eldred.cc] would also show that there still exist some things outside Congress's enumerated powers.
Wrong on one important point (Score:3, Interesting)
because it's NOT! This law was overturned on exactly the 10th Amendment argument you are making. Sadly there are still lots of laws that completely ignore the concept of federalism but at least the Supremes are *starting* apply it here and there.
From that point of view last night's election is good news. With control of the senate GWB will likely get to appoint much more conservative judges than he would otherwise - judges who are strict constructionists and much more likely to uphold the 10th ammendment in all it's chaotic decentralized glory. States will be much more free to follow their own course - more libertarian in AZ, more theocratic in GA, maybe even more progressive in VT.
Wicard's wheat (Score:4, Informative)
Congress's ability to make laws the regulate personal behaviour and practices entirely within a state ALL stem from the constitution's allowance for the feds to regulate inter-state commerce. And this was originally put in the constitution as a sweetener to join the union (i.e joint a free trade zone! much like reason everyone joined the EU or why nafta happened. scary).
Excerpted from www.fff.org: Enter Roscoe Filburn, an Ohio dairy and poultry farmer, who raised a small quantity of winter wheat -- some to sell, some to feed his livestock, and some to consume. In 1940, under authority of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the central government told Mr. Filburn that for the next year he would be limited to planting 11 acres of wheat and harvesting 20 bushels per acre. He harvested 12 acres over his allotment for consumption on his own property. When the government fined him, Mr. Filburn refused to pay. Wickard v. Filburn got to the Supreme Court, and in 1942, the justices unanimously ruled against the farmer. The government claimed that if Mr. Filburn grew wheat for his own use, he would not be buying it -- and that affected interstate commerce. It also argued that if the price of wheat rose, which is what the government wanted, Mr. Filburn might be tempted to sell his surplus wheat in the interstate market, thwarting the government's objective. The Supreme Court bought it. The Court's opinion must be quoted to be believed: [The wheat] supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. As Epstein commented, "Could anyone say with a straight face that the consumption of home-grown wheat is 'commerce among the several states?'" For good measure, the Court justified the obvious sacrifice of Mr. Filburn's freedom and interests to the unnamed farmers being protected: It is of the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand on the self-interest of the regulated and that advantages from the regulation commonly fall to others. After Wickard , everything is mere detail. The entire edifice of civil rights legislation stands on the commerce power. Under this maximum commerce power, the government has been free to regulate nearly everything, including a restaurant owner's bigotry. The Court has held that if Congress sees a connection to interstate commerce, it is not its role to second guess.
Re:MARIJUANA IN NEVADA!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Obviously is isn't just about "one's ability to get high." It is about our civil rights and about people being able to get proper medical treatment. What the hell is the point of making a plant illegal?
The hidden truth (Score:3, Funny)
Re:MARIJUANA IN NEVADA!!! (Score:2)
Whether or not that had anything to do w/the database being
Re:MARIJUANA IN NEVADA!!! (Score:2)
Well at 9:50 central time it was:
There you have it!
Re:MARIJUANA IN NEVADA!!! (Score:2)
Best John McCain quote (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Best John McCain quote (Score:2, Funny)
sorry...
it is election night....
and yes, I have been drinking heavily...
nbfn
Re:Best John McCain quote (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Best John McCain quote (Score:3, Informative)
Even in the drugged up one, I would still take her over Chelsey.
Re:Best John McCain quote (Score:3, Informative)
Jouster
Re:Best John McCain quote (Score:3, Funny)
Macs in the White House? Why not?
Re:Best John McCain quote (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Best John McCain quote (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Best John McCain quote (Score:3, Funny)
*duck*
Re:Best (paraphrased) John McCain quote (Score:5, Funny)
Interviewer: So will you be running for President in 2012?
McCain: No.
Interviewer: 2008?
McCain: No.
Interviewer: 2004?
McCain: President Bush is up for re-election in 2004.
Interviewer: What if he forgets to run?
McCain:
Re:Best John McCain quote (Score:3, Funny)
Last night on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart was talking to him, saying it looked like the Republicans were going to have control of Congress and asked McCain if that meant all Americans were going to have to own guns (for those who don't know, The Daily Show is a comedy "news" show). McCain said, "Well, I understand the Bushmaster is a popular model..." He almost lost the crowd with that one but I thought it was "edgy" as opposed to being in poor taste. (for those living under a rock, Bushmaster is the rifle model used in the Maryland area sniper shootings last month).
Re:WHY USA FLAG ON SLASHDOT???? (Score:2)
Junis? Is that you?
at least you had the chance to "check your work" (Score:5, Interesting)
A news source reported it to the state before anyone else did. After that it was said (on TV) that actual people starting calling in.
At least the GA voting machines let you check your work yourself instead of having to call over a voting "helper" to make the changes.
Electronic voting ... where's the code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Electronic voting ... where's the code? (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone would catch it, you know they would. If you really think that a SINGLE person wrote and and another examined I would have to say you are crazy.
Just my worthless
Re:Electronic voting ... where's the code? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Electronic voting ... where's the code? (Score:4, Informative)
Rebecca Mercuri [brynmawr.edu] did her CS PhD thesis on this very topic. Here is her summary [notablesoftware.com]. She's often quoted [slashdot.org] on this topic.
Re:Electronic voting ... where's the code? (Score:2, Funny)
George had it right - "You're either for us or against us." There ain't no middle ground and there ain't no room for your leftist propaganda. Spout your hateful divisive ideas somewhere else, this is America. This is the NEW America, strong and proud. Either you support our duly-elected kick-ass President George Bush 100% or you don't deserve to call yourself an American. So get with the program or get off our turf. If you disagree with how the President is running things, you're against freedom and American values and will be dealt with as such.
Goddamit, Slashdot's going straight to hell with all these lumatics.
Jim "Figure4" Burke
Re:Electronic voting ... where's the code? (Score:4, Interesting)
And the company that manufactures the most widely used ones is owned a major Republican supporter. There is at least one shareholder who is an actual politician. They've started suing news outlets publishing this information, though.
Re:Electronic voting ... where's the code? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Electronic voting ... where's the code? (Score:5, Funny)
They should use secure open source code
They can borrow the code for the /. poll
Cowboy Neal for President!
You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd appreciate it if you could keep this in mind for next year. The more informed voters we have out there, the better. Slashdot could really help get the word out (especially on the issues that matter most to geeks!)
Re:You know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah right... (Score:3, Funny)
I mean what fun would that be?
Re:You know... (Score:2)
Stolen... (Score:3, Insightful)
Voter News Service Finally Admits . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Voter News Service Finally Admits . . . (Score:3, Funny)
shh... you REALLY don't want us to change to the Truman Decimal System
This is actually good news in a way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A bone to pick with the dept. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A bone to pick with the dept. (Score:2, Informative)
Candidates who agree with my views get elected. Candidates who support the views of people who are too smart to vote don't get elected. People who are too smart to vote conclude that they're even smarter than they'd realized.
Sucks for them that the system rewards cornball values like citzenship and responsibility instead of snideness and cynicism...
Electronic Voting analysis by a CompSci prof (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/
In particular, I recommend the essay on Paper Ballots, that's the theoretical basis for the current electronic systems.
International observers in Florida (Score:5, Interesting)
The most interesting thing I've heard on the news today is that one of the international organizations that monitors elections in the Third World is monitoring the election in Florida this time.
Re:International observers in Florida (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:International observers in Florida (Score:2)
I know Ashcroft sent a bunch of his guys to make sure there was no, err.. HANKY PANKY..
cough cough..
Jeb Bush won.
Re:International observers in Florida (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you kidding? Those third world countries are in Florida tonight to see how a corrupt election is run by the Greatest Nation on the Planet. They wanna learn from the big guys how to do it and get away with it.
A Bill Gates campain poster (Score:2, Funny)
Fritz Hollings out as commerce committee chair! (Score:4, Insightful)
As for voting glitches, I only have this to say. If you have a complaint about an election process, better to voice it before the election, not during or after when your party's candidate is losing or has lost. The reports that lawyers are on standby for each major party infuriates me. Either the process is goofed to begin with or it isn't. Maybe I'm just an idealist, but I believe any discrepencies with the voting processes are going to affect all candidates, not just losing ones.
Re:Fritz Hollings out as commerce committee chair! (Score:3, Insightful)
> No matter what your party affiliation is, you have to be encouraged by the growing possibility of Republicans taking back control of the Senate.
I don't have a party affiliation, and the prospect terrifies me.
Re:Fritz Hollings out as commerce committee chair! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fritz Hollings out as commerce committee chair! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nevermind Fritz Hollings (D-Disney), I'm worried about the kind of Stone Age judiciary GWB can appoint without opposition review. Remember what happened for those few months when he could? Maybe John Ashcroft would be more comfortable as a member Supreme Court than as AG.
No, thanks.
Re:Fritz Hollings out as commerce committee chair! (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe for you, but not for me. That means projects like the missile defense system will likely get millions or billions of dollars in funding, regardless of the fact that the experimental results behind the system prove that it isn't going to work as promised and the science to get around the problems raised in testing still isn't up to the task.
I factor a whole bunch more into my votes than "geek" issues (i.e military, the environment, taxes, education, and government R&D funding, just to name a few). I hope you do the same.
That would mean our favorite Hollywood apologist, Senator Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., would no longer set the agenda for the commerce committee.
Not really, it just means the money Hollywood paid him to take those positions would be put in his republican replacement's coffers or in another Senators from a different state.
Re:Fritz Hollings out as commerce committee chair! (Score:3, Funny)
Gawd.
God help us (Score:4, Insightful)
I've got two words that should fully capture how encouraged I would be by that prospect:
John Ashcroft
The Republicans had the Senate for a few months and it brought us the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, some of the most frightening abrogrations of basic constitutional protections, gutted antitrust enforcement, and who knows how many other goodies.
Fritz Hollings will be perfectly capable of doing damage whether the Democrats stay on top or not. As I recall, Republican Congresses didn't stop the DMCA or the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension act from sailing through.
Re:Fritz Hollings out as commerce committee chair! (Score:3, Informative)
Umm, no. The worse anti-technology legislators are Republicans. List from the Worst Coders in Washington article: http://www.aotc.info/archives/000152.html
See all those little R's?
The Lawmakers
These lawmakers in the House of Representatives and the Senate wrote more anti-technology legal code than any of their co-legislators.
1. Rep. Charles (Chip) Pickering (R-MS 3rd district) 3 bills $230,900
DMCA, COPA, CIPA
2. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX 21st district) 2 bills $87,112
P2P Piracy Prevention Bill, COPA
3. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK ) 2 bills $375,339
CBDTPA, CIPA
4. Rep. Bill Paxon (R-NY 27th district) 2 bills $200,938
DMCA, COPA
5. Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-CA 26th district) 2 bills $212,991
DMCA, P2P Piracy Prevention Bill
6. Rep. Michael G. Oxley (R-OH 4th district) 2 bills $184,998
COPA, CIPA
7. Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC 6th district) 2 bills $114,747
DMCA, P2P Piracy Prevention Bill
8. Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC ) 2 bills $532,980
CBDTPA, CIPA
9. Rep. Bob Franks (R-NJ 7th district) 2 bills $661,784
COPA, CIPA
10. Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR 3rd district) 1 bill $99,350
COPA
11. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ ) 1 bill $1,050,321
CIPA
12. Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-MD 6th district) 1 bill $50,500
COPA
13. Rep. Jack Metcalf (R-WA 2nd district) 1 bill $185,377
COPA
14. Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY 1st district) 1 bill $115,980
COPA
15. Rep. Dan Schaefer (R-CO 6th district) 1 bill $145,162
COPA
16. Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-IL 6th district) 1 bill $83,500
DMCA
17. Rep. Paul E. Gillmor (R-OH 5th district) 1 bill $107,849
COPA
18. Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL 15th district) 1 bill $139,759
COPA
19. Rep. John R. Kasich (R-OH 12th district) 1 bill $235,185
COPA
20. Sen. Conrad R. Burns (R-MT ) 1 bill $506,126
CIPA
21. Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO 7th district) 1 bill $175,636
COPA
22. Rep. Mark W. Neumann (R-WI 1st district) 1 bill $167,765
COPA
23. Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA 4th district) 1 bill $78,765
COPA
24. Rep. Vince Snowbarger (R-KS 3rd district) 1 bill $106,774
COPA
25. Rep. James C. Greenwood (R-PA 8th district) 1 bill $98,185
COPA
26. Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM 1st district) 1 bill $232,960
COPA
27. Sen. J. James Exon (D-NE ) 1 bill $0
CDA
28. Rep. Steve Largent (R-OK 1st district) 1 bill $98,852
COPA
29. Rep. Stephen E. Buyer (R-IN 5th district) 1 bill $115,160
COPA
30. Rep. Collin C. Peterson (D-MN 7th district) 1 bill $126,499
COPA
31. Rep. Mary Bono (R-CA 44th district) 1 bill $76,604
DMCA
32. Rep. Jon D. Fox (R-PA 13th district) 1 bill $200,834
COPA
33. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL 6th district) 1 bill $92,743
COPA
34. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA ) 1 bill $389,544
CBDTPA
35. Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI 3rd district) 1 bill $47,719
COPA
36. Rep. Ronnie Shows (D-MS 4th district) 1 bill $210,650
CIPA
37. Rep. Robert B. Aderholt (R-AL 4th district) 1 bill $266,944
COPA
38. Rep. John M. McHugh (R-NY 24th district) 1 bill $92,380
COPA
39. Rep. Jon Christensen (R-NE 2nd district) 1 bill $230,552
COPA
40. Rep. Max Sandlin (D-TX 1st district) 1 bill $215,450
COPA
41. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA 4th district) 1 bill $55,500
DMCA
42. Rep. Greg Ganske (R-IA 4th district) 1 bill $177,885
COPA
43. Rep. J. C. Jr. Watts (R-OK 4th district) 1 bill $135,705
COPA
44. Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-CT 6th district) 1 bill $279,554
COPA
45. Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-MO ) 1 bill $477,360
CIPA
46. Rep. Michael Bilirakis (R-FL 9th district) 1 bill $92,011
COPA
47. Rep. Jr. Nethercutt, George R. (R-WA 5th district) 1 bill $142,127
COPA
48. Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA 9th district) 1 bill $106,339
COPA
49. Rep. Linda Smith (R-WA 3rd district) 1 bill $52,494
COPA
50. Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN 6th district) 1 bill $248,500
COPA
51. Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY 1st district) 1 bill $169,715
COPA
52. Rep. Tim Johnson (R-IL 15th district) 1 bill $383,959
CDA
53. Rep. Jay Kim (R-CA 41st district) 1 bill $116,574
COPA
54. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX ) 1 bill $422,932
CIPA
55. Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN 6th district) 1 bill $145,282
COPA
56. Rep. Michael Pappas (R-NJ 12th district) 1 bill $80,749
COPA
57. Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL 16th district) 1 bill $106,699
COPA
58. Rep. Mark E. Souder (R-IL 4th district) 1 bill $75,534
COPA
59. Sen. John B. Breaux (D-LA ) 1 bill $343,769
CBDTPA
60. Rep. David L. Hobson (R-OH 7th district) 1 bill $104,922
COPA
61. Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-IL 1st district) 1 bill $177,481
CIPA
62. Rep. Thomas J. Manton (D-NY 7th district) 1 bill $118,494
COPA
63. Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA 43th district) 1 bill $127,625
COPA
64. Rep. Joseph R. Pitts (R-PA 16th district) 1 bill $103,800
COPA
65. Rep. John Jr. Conyers (D-MI 14th district) 1 bill $99,110
DMCA
66. Rep. Elizabeth Furse (D-OR 1st district) 1 bill $248,322
COPA
67. Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI 6th district) 1 bill $121,673
COPA
68. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL ) 1 bill $442,151
CBDTPA
69. Rep. Jr. Istook, Ernest J. (R-OK 5th district) 1 bill $93,284
COPA
70. Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-MI ) 1 bill $732,850
CIPA
71. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX 6th district) 1 bill $162,944
COPA
72. Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC 9th district) 1 bill $147,741
COPA
73. Rep. Pat Danner (D-MO 6th district) 1 bill $112,950
COPA
74. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX 5th district) 1 bill $207,111
COPA
75. Rep. Bill McCollum (R-FL 8th district) 1 bill $326,487
DMCA
76. Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman (R-NY 20th district) 1 bill $149,306
COPA
77. Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL 11th district) 1 bill $200,075
COPA
78. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL 19th district) 1 bill $107,500
P2P Piracy Prevention Bill
79. Rep. Sue W. Kelly (R-NY 19th district) 1 bill $168,550
COPA
80. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC ) 1 bill $386,450
CIPA
81. Rep. Richard Burr (R-NC 5th district) 1 bill $118,275
COPA
82. Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA 10th district) 1 bill $185,621
COPA
83. Rep. Phil English (R-PA 21st district) 1 bill $163,562
COPA
84. Rep. Gerald B. H. Solomon (R-NY 22nd district) 1 bill $164,098
COPA
85. Rep. Ralph M. Hall (D-OH 3rd district) 1 bill $94,000
COPA
86. Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA 41st district) 1 bill $148,450
CIPA
87. Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA ) 1 bill $376,525
CDA
88. Rep. Rick Lazio (R-NY 2nd district) 1 bill $214,076
COPA
89. Rep. Sonny Callahan (R-AL 1th district) 1 bill $109,835
COPA
90. Rep. John E. Peterson (R-PA 5th district) 1 bill $60,556
COPA
91. Rep. Sonny Bono (R-CA 44th district) 1 bill $0
DMCA
92. Rep. Charles H. Taylor (R-NC 11th district) 1 bill $90,864
COPA
93. Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI ) 1 bill $247,429
CBDTPA
Why trust el;ectronic/computerized voting? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that fraud would become even simpler with computerized voting to me. It's like everyone is jumping on a train without thinking about its destination, or, more to the point, the path it will take to its destination.
Where do the results go? Do they go to separate databases, preferably several separate databases, as soon as a vote is cast? This would seemingly allow for "diffing," for lack of a better term, between multiple sources of final vote counts.
I'm in no shape at the moment to define how the electronic/computerized voting results should be quanitified, but PLEASE, at least let us consider these things, rather than saying to ourselves "Well, it's computerized now, so at least there will be no more fraud."
If we're going to redesign how the votes in this nation are counted, and I believe that we are all in agreement that this system of voting desperately needs to be revamped in this modern age (please feel free to tell me I'm wrong), that we can sit down and discuss how it should be done, rather than allowing our morbidly ignorant "representative government" to tell us how it should, and will be done for us.
Oh, wait, this is the US. I forgot, we have no say. Ah, well, cross your fingers and hope for the best.
Re:Why trust el;ectronic/computerized voting? (Score:3, Insightful)
I love the spaceball's quote - evil will triumph because good is dumb. Not sure about where you voted, but I watched some people really struggle with setting up a folding table this morning and trying to write a sequence of numbers on card stock. The risk of a computer based fraud is nothing compared to what hand counting errors would be. Cheating the system is always possible but malice can be prosecuted, stupidity and mistakes...
One of the most frighting discoveries was jury duty - finding out what a jury of 'peers' really is. God help the underfunded innocent.
Prediction (Score:5, Funny)
2) Ballotscape's software becomes installed on voting machines nationwide.
3) Microsoft releases "innovative" MS-Vote for free.
4) Microsoft embeds MS-Vote into Windows.
5) Microsoft gives away Dell voting machines to the States as a condition for overcharging for licenses.
6) Gates/Dell presidential ticket mysteriously captures 90% of the popular vote (Jobs/Feiss ticket only receives 5%).
Re:Prediction (Score:4, Funny)
7) Despite Gates/Dell being the popular winners, 1337 Hax0r sweeps in the electoral college.
8) The next session of Congress opens with a proposal from an 11 year old girl in South Korea, who "sent this bill to have your advice".
Good! We need more of these incidents. (Score:2)
scary thought (Score:2)
I can see it now you go to touch the screen for a non-republician canaidate, and the order on the ballet changes. Kind of like those joke dialog boxes that the OK button moves when you try to click it.
How many times can the Democrats pull this crap?! (Score:2, Insightful)
2. Democrats challenge poll closing, say there are still more voters who need to vote (for the democrats, of course).
3. Democrats go to Democrat/liberal judge and get an ex parte injunction, keeping the polls open a few more hours.
4. Republicans challenge the extension, say any vote cast after the polls were supposed to have closed should be discarded.
5. After several hours of bickering, whining, and screaming, Republicans win. Late votes discarded.
6. Democrats accuse Republicans of closing polls to keep the hard workin' man (who votes Democrat) out.
7. Republicans say "no, we really love the hard working man, and we respect the rules -- the polls should have closed when they were supposed to. The time of poll closing was announced weeks ago!"
8. Democrats respond: "no, you hate the hard working man, and we were just trying to fight for him."
9. Republicans crawl away.
10. Repeat next election.
---------------
It boggles my mind that this same scenario happens each and every election day, in countless cities across the country. You'd think the republicans would have enough brain cells to get the democrats to agree (or at least give them certified, return receipt notice) as to the time the polls are going to close. I guess the Democrats have some pretty hard numbers that show a vast majority of people who intend to vote after the polls close are democrats (go figure), so even in bad faith, it is to the democrats' advantage to make every effort to extend the time of poll closing. If they push it through, they get more votes, and if the republicans oppose, worst case scenario is they get to say "the republicans tried to close the polls on the workin' man!"
It's shameful, but what's even more shameful is the republicans not figuring this shit out.
Re:How many times can the Democrats pull this crap (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Poll don't close at 7:00. In CA they close at 8:00 which often isn't enough time to have everyone vote. If people arrive at 7:45 and there is a line for voting booths? Should their vote not count? For example today an Arkansas decreed the polls stay up till 10:00 PM because at least one county ran out of ballots. If your polling place runs out of ballots, does that mean your vote doesn't count?
In major cities getting off work to go to you polling place can take time and cost money. Since voting is not a holiday, not everyone can afford to take time to get to the polling place early. Why on earth should late votes be discarded? What's the point of disenfanchising someone? Because the polling place is supposed to be closed? This is democracy in action not a 7/11. The sort of rules bound thinking you are displaying is dangerous in a democracy.
Here's another clue -> Check the legal precedents for late ballots. You will find that even the currnet Supreme Court tends to error on the side of equal protection.
As far as the republicans trying to close the plls on the working man, isn't that EXACTLY the case? Are you saying,"Can't take time off for work?" Well screw you, we are going to make sure you don't get to vote. I find it amazing that this is OK for you. Are you sure you are in the right country?
I don't think you realize how dangerous it is to "discard" votes (and why almost all the time those votes are counted, not discarded). Democracies like ours operate on the principle one person, one vote. Any attempts to disenfranchise the right to vote is wrong. From poll taxes to roadblocks in Florida, thwarting the democractic process is extremely damaging to society in the long run.
What actually happened (Score:4, Informative)
Democrats asked for the initial order because some precincts in Pulaski County ran out of ballots.
In other words, people are showing up on time and not being able to vote because the equipment isn't working/available. The Democrats are trying to fix the problem, and the Republicans are trying (successfully, it seems) to stop them.
Florida, anyone?
Saw this one coming (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, if VNS were as good at predicting the outcome of software development projects, as they are at predicting election results... Hmmm, maybe the problem is, they are.
Re:Saw this one coming (Score:2)
All you really need to know is what percentage of people answered the exit poll, and the different percentages of their answers. Given that, you can call races.
Is there some reason that this had to take more than 30 minutes to program?
Goddamn but /. is late (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Goddamn but /. is late (Score:2)
It takes a website to get large numbers of people to vote. And that is what matters.
Sorry for replying to this obvious troll, everyone, but it is important that this sort of thinking doesn't go unchallenged. I know a lot of slashdotters belong to the vast horde of the young and politically apathetic--but it's important not to let that viewpoint win.
Hollings is the exception (Score:3)
You must be newer. The "Worst coders in Washington" story lists the lawmakers behind the bills slashdot tends to complain about and its something like 90% Republican.
Source: http://www.aotc.info/archives/000152.html
>They would rather ignore one or 2 issues for the "greater good" of keeping the democrats in power.
Remember to turn down your radio before you call Rush Limbaugh.
kind of convenient (Score:2)
Re:kind of convenient (Score:2, Informative)
Good! Polling should be illegal. (Score:2, Insightful)
So? (Score:2)
There's no such thing as a perfect voting system.
And Jeb wins in Florida (Score:4, Interesting)
The State of Florida, when confronted with this information, admitted that the list was flawed and that they would get it fixed...some time in 2003. After the current election.
For more information check out Greg Palast's book "The Best Democracy Money Could Buy". It's a heck of a read. There was also an article over at Salon late last week but it is in their premium contect section.
Re:And Jeb wins in Florida (Score:3, Interesting)
It was found in the 1998 election that a large number of convicted felons voted, which is against Florida state law.
As a result, Florida hired the services of ChoicePointe to compile a list of possible felons to prevent this in the 2000 election. The list included about 100,000 names.
Every one of those 100,000 people were notified by mail that they were included on the list and they were given a proceedure to dispute the listing (it was simply to go to you local police station with a photo-id and provide a finger print).
These names were given to local county election officials, who had the option of using the list to bar people from voting. Not every county used the list.
It is not known how many people were incorrectly banned from voting.
A total of 5 people claimed they were incorrectly not allowed to vote because they didn't follow the proceedure to remove their names. There could have been more, but only 5 people formally complained.
Here [naacp.org] is the official settlement agreement from the NAACP. Read on the bottom of page 1:
Defendants have taken an oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the State of Florida... Plaintiffs have not alleged that Defendants acted in a purposefully discriminatory manner toward any group
It clearly states that nobody was accusing Katherine Harris or Jeb Bush or anybody else in Florida of any wrongdoing or fraud. So, your (and this Greg Palast fool) entire claim is the following: In 2000, Florida compiled a list of 100,000 convicted felons to prevent them from breaking state law and voting. Of that list of 100,000 people, an unknown number were legitimate voters. Of that unknown number of legitimate voters, an unknown number did not follow the proceedure to dispute their name being included on the list. Of that unknown number, an unknown number lived in counties that did not use the list in the election. Of that unknown number, an unknown number would have even bothered to show up to vote (expect about 40% for voter turnout averages). And, the official legal settlement as shown on the plaintiffs web site makes no accusation of fraud or wrong doing.
Is this seriously the best election scandal you can come up with?
When did politics become vital for geeks? (Score:2, Interesting)
Call it flamebait/offtopic/troll/whatever if you want, but it's an honest question:
When was the last time having a good working knowledge of senators and politicians was necessary for the average geek? Is this the first time period in American history where politics play a vital role in our daily lives insofar as the comingling of our PCs and freedoms? DRM? Napster? RIAA invasions into our home PCs? The Patriot Act? Before recent years, can you think of the geek community despising someone for the same reasons as a great deal of
It's not really an issue of the technically-literate (is that better? Yeesh) being socially responsible citizens, but I'll bet that at the past 2 or 3 elections, geek turnout has been higher than normal at least in part because issues that directly affect us have been in the spotlight. Perhaps we feel that it's our responsiblity to at least sort of steer things in what we believe to be the proper direction? I dunno. I'm stuck at work until 3am, I'm bored and I thought I'd see if anyone would bite.
Proper computing solution superior (Score:3, Interesting)
A proper voting system also means using Linux or OpenBSD as the OS, not Windows 2k/XP, both of which aren't nearly as secure (or as stable) as a well-configured Linux or OpenBSD system. Also, they aren't controlled by proprietary interests like MS which would find nothing wrong with tampering with an election.
Also, of course, a proper program is needed, with an easy to use interface, with clear instructions.
Something like this would do for electing the Congressman:
1. Choose a Candidate for the Congressman by touching his name with your finger: X, Y, Z
Click preview to preview your voting selections.
2. You have selected:
For Congressman: X
3. If these are the candidates you want to vote for, touch YES! with your finger. If not, touch NO! with your finger.
If person touches NO!, back to #1, with previous selections highlighted, and allowing user to change it.
Very simple. Very effective. Even someone in Florida could figure it out. At the very least, you won't be counting divits and chads.
Computer voting system in Colorado (Score:3, Interesting)
There was no internet/network connection to each voting booth box. The people running the voting would take a hardware cartridge (like a Nintendo cartrigde of old) and plug in into the voting booth tablet to activate it, and then they remove it. Apparently they first "activated" it in some main computer. It was a touch-screen tablet PC with a straightforward interface... click the candidate you want with your finger. It then showed a big X next to who you voted for. If you wanted to change it, you could click a different candidate, and the X would move to their name.
Several pages of votes later, you get to review a list of all of your votes. If they look satisfactory, you push a "VOTE" button at the top of the tablet, which flashes red when you are ready to finish voting. Press it and you are done. I didn't see what happens after that. I imagine the computers keep a tally of votes on each, and they are plugged into the main server at some point, or the "cartridges" can be used to download the vote data and they plug into the main server.
But the main point is, there was no internet connection, no keyboard, a proprietary "cartridge" system for passing some kind of voter data or to activate the terminal for voting. Obviously I don't know the OS it was running, but it did seem fairly straightforward with no obvious ways to mess with it. Not to mention that there were 4 election representatives there overseeing everything and it would be way obvious if anyone tried to mess with the machines in any way.
I don't know if they had any kind of built in UPS, because someone could pull the plug out of the wall easily... but overall they looked like good voting machines with proprietary hardware, which is a good thing IMO...
Mark
New voting method being tested in Europe (Score:5, Funny)
1. Voters are given a piece of "paper". On this "paper" are the names of the candidates or parties, followed the respective picture or symbol, followed by an empty square.
2. Using a device known as "pen", the voters proceed to make a "cross" (a highly optimised mark, consisting of two straight lines) inside the "square" that corresponds to the person or party they wish to vote for.
3. The voters then fold this paper two or three times and insert it in a large "box" (a device for storing pieces of paper).
4. Once voting is over, advanced counting machines known as "people" (usually groups of volunteers, with one or two official representatives) take the pieces of paper out of the box and look at the marks made with the pens. They write down how many "votes" there were for each candidate. This process typically takes less than six hours, including one recount.
5. (This part will sound obvious to most people familiar with democracy, but americans may find it surprising) The candidate with the most votes wins.
It's a relatively inexpensive and ecological process, since the paper can be recycled. But, most of all, it works.
RMN
~~~
Re:New voting method being used in Nevada (Score:5, Insightful)
> a card with a magnetic strip is activated [...] you go and
> stick that in the machine [...]
This was probably invented by Wallace & Gromit, right? It sort of reminds me of the NASA program to create a pen that could write in space. NASA (and american taxpayers) "invested" close to one million dollars on that. The russians used pencils.
> it eliminates multiple votes for the same office,
Huh?
> it allows you to *change* your vote if you've pressed the wrong box,
If you make a mistake, ask for a new piece of "paper". They're free.
> and it allows you to *verify* that you have voted for the right canidate!
I assume you mean "right" in a practical sense, not in a philosophical sense. In which case, using the "paper" method, you can use your "eyes" to look at the "paper", and you'll know if you've voted for the right candidate.
Also, computers are known to sometimes misplace some bytes. It's extremely rare for a cross made with a pen to jump from one part of the paper to another.
Sometimes low tech is good tech.
RMN
~~~
Re:New voting method being used in Nevada (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, that is an urban legend. [snopes.com]
VNS has Content Problems Too (Score:3, Informative)
To get back to software issues, some of the stations had a fixed display format that could only handle two candidates (whether the numbers were correct or not), while others were more flexible (which they also needed for things like city council races, which here in California are usually Vote-for-N-of-M non-partisan.)
Re:My Plan (Score:2)
Re:A major News Source (Score:2)
I wouldn't touch the Drudge Report with a 10-foot pole, and yes, you're showing your bias. The Drudge Report is basically unsubstantiated gossip posing as news; why would I want to check it for anything?
And, as a Minnesota Republican: UP YOURS MONDALE...
I know you're both a Republican and a Minnesotan, so it may be hard, but try to show at least a little dignity, ok?
Please tell me you aren't this naive (Score:3, Insightful)
The President submits a budget to congress (what exactly did you think Reagan was talking about when explaining his "trickle down economics" program? An Econ 101 paper he was writing?)
The President appoints the leaders of the departments of the executive branch (such as that Dept. of Defense, which accounts for 43% of federal spending)
The President gets to veto any law passed by Congress (like the ridiculous defense pork that the Republican congress kept trying to pass during the Clinton years -- despite the fact that our military is grossly over-prepared for any realistically plausible enemies)
Its interesting that the Republicans are the ones that spend money hand over fist (that little 43% number again) and then when caught with their hands in the cookie jar, grin and point at the Dems.
Re:A major News Source (Score:2)
Re:open beta (Score:2)
CNNs election calls... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2002/pages/how.html [cnn.com]
Re:a protest (Score:3, Insightful)
You raise the biggest objection that I (and all of us should) have to "paperless voting." Where is the accountability? Where is the audit trail? How do we even know how the dang software works?
With paper ballots, you can always go back and do a hand count; and that frequently happens in elections. What do you do with electronic-only votes? And let's say you do re-tally the electronic votes, and you get a different answer... then what?
Sure, paper ballots can be lost, burned, counted improperly, etc. But at least they're tangible things. We don't even know what's in the guts of electronic-only voting machines. What happens when the power goes out? Mabye they have some weird Pentium math error that the coders didn't take into account?
I'm sure many on Slashdot will think I'm some sort of neo-Luddite for not trusting the technology, but DO YOU want to trust code you haven't seen?
I like the voting machines here in Seattle. It's a fill-in-the-bubble ballot, which then gets read by a computer. If they need to do a recount, they can always go back to the paper ballots. What are you going to fall back on in Georgia if, I don't know, lightning hits the voting machine, or evil terrorist somehow hack the central election computer?
Just because there's a new high-tech way to do something doesn't mean it should be done that way. The bread that gramma bakes in the oven is ten times better than the stuff coming from my computerized Zojirushi bread machine.
Re:a protest (Score:5, Insightful)
Make the voting machines print out a summary page.
Confirm your votes on the screen. The machine prints out a list of your votes, with a stamp on it to confirm which machine it came from and when it was made. You visually inspect the list and compare it to your choices on the screen, and then confirm a second time. Then you're done.
If something doesn't work right, then one of those 10,000+ lawyers that were at the polls yesterday could raise a Big Stink(TM) about it.
Sure, it could be hijacked. I mean, if it's got rogue code which is designed to only register votes for John Q. Incumbent, then maybe it'll print your results accurately, but actually log a vote for the other guy. SO...you do a secondary confirmation count by machine processing the paper votes, just like your fill-in-the-bubble ballots. Check the paper results against the electronic results. There you go. And in the event of extreme paranoia/lawsuits, you've got the *voter confirmed* paper printouts which can be visually inspected for a recount.