Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States

Gore Vidal Savages Electronic Voting 1029

gribbly writes "aging author and social critic Gore Vidal savaged electronic voting in an interview with the LA Weekly. The interview deals mainly with (what's wrong with) the Bush Administration, but halfway down he says: 'We don't want an election without a paper trail...all three owners of the companies who make these machines are donors to the Bush administration. Is this not corruption?'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gore Vidal Savages Electronic Voting

Comments Filter:
  • by Eraserhd ( 21298 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @04:14PM (#7467221) Homepage
    Sign the HR 2239 petition [thepetitionsite.com]. It requires electronic machines to produce a receipt which is deposited in a lock box in case of a recount and mandates .5% of districts at random do a recount to verify accuracy of the machines.
  • Must be Bush's fault (Score:2, Informative)

    by obsid1an ( 665888 ) <obsidian@@@mchsi...com> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @04:20PM (#7467333)
    We don't want an election without a paper trail...all three owners of the companies who make these machines are donors to the Bush administration. Is this not corruption?

    And if Clinton was president odds are they would be donating to Clinton. It may be corruption, but at least it's universal.

  • by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara,hudson&barbara-hudson,com> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @04:20PM (#7467334) Journal
    Some might suggest the innovated "One Time Pad", but we need to hold elections at least every four years--we need a solution that will work more than one time.

    A one-time pad isn't what you seem to think of. For example, I could have a cd-rw with a 100,000 1,024kbyte keys, all different. You have the same cd-rw. I send you a message encrypted with one of the keys - then I overwrite that key w. the burner. You decrypt w. the same key, and overwrite the key w. the burner. So long as we are the only 2 people w. the physical CD-RW, the "one-time" pad is good for 100,000 messages.

  • Re:I hardly believe (Score:2, Informative)

    by bigjnsa500 ( 575392 ) <bigjnsa500@nOSpAM.yahoo.com> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @04:22PM (#7467371) Homepage Journal
    Nobody said he was the perfect president. That's why there are term limitations. You don't like somebody in office, next term vote them out. Its so easy even a child could do it.
  • Re:enough (Score:3, Informative)

    by saddino ( 183491 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @04:25PM (#7467420)
    Newsflash, you're confusing Gore Vidal [commondreams.org] with Al Gore [algoreisourpresident.com].
  • by GMontag ( 42283 ) <gmontag AT guymontag DOT com> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @04:27PM (#7467469) Homepage Journal
    The parent is correct, PLUS Gore Vidal is the brighter cousin of the Al Gore/Gore Vidal kinship (yes, the relation is a fact that seems to be little known).

    Odd that so many times Bush's relatives are dragged out to make some sort of wacky conspiracy theory, but Gore Vidal talks about elections and everybody forgets that he is Albert Gore Jr.'s cousin!

    I would be quite surprised if the blanket statement about contributions to "the Bush Administration" (sorry, in the USA we contribute to campaigns, not administrations) ommitted contributions to the DNC, the loosing campaign of Al Gore, and current Democrat candidates. Just a hunch, since large firms usually contribute to both sides.
  • Re:Corruption? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 13, 2003 @04:29PM (#7467492)
    You are an idiot [reference.com]:

    tr.v. savaged, savaging, savages

    1. To assault ferociously.
    2. To attack without restraint or pity: The critics savaged the new play.
  • Re:Corruption? (Score:5, Informative)

    by RealErmine ( 621439 ) <commerce@@@wordhole...net> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @04:34PM (#7467580)
    The only corruption here is the horrible corruption of the English language that somehow lead to CmdrTaco thinking "to savage" meant "to ravage."

    From m-w.com:

    savage v. :to attack or treat brutally

    ravage v. :to wreak havoc on : affect destructively

    Seems like either of these is just fine in the context provided.
  • by ianscot ( 591483 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @04:39PM (#7467656)
    Go do a google for "Diebold" and "Republican." Browse a bit. Sample result:

    "Wally O'Dell, CEO of Diebold Inc., this week sent out letters to central Ohio Republicans asking them to raise $10,000 in donations in time for a Sept. 26 Ohio Republican Party event at his home."
    -- Port Clinton News Herald [portclinto...herald.com]

    Wally O'Dell has sworn to deliver Ohio's electoral votes for G.W. next year. That's well beyond the level of the generality you've just expressed.

    And no, companies and industries don't give money equally. In some industries they do, in some there's a much more slanted bias. Think the energy industry's giving money to Howard Dean much? Trial lawyers give money to Democrats. HMOs give money to Republicans. For some mysterious reason, there's a very real Republican slant among these vote-counting companies. We're not talking about them covering their bases both ways, we're talking about openly advocating for one party while selling machines that count votes.

  • by Peyna ( 14792 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @04:41PM (#7467683) Homepage
    Most libraries keep archives of old newspapers indefinitely. You can go there now and probably find any New York Times paper since it has existed in one form or another. (not necessarily in paper form, but maybe microfiche?)
  • Re:sure, but... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Frobnicator ( 565869 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @04:42PM (#7467690) Journal
    and now want to give driver's licenses to illegals
    This is an old issue. Drivers licenses have been given out to illegal aliens for decades in some states. I know of several states where it is already legal, and there are probably more (Tennessee, North Carolina, Utah, Kansas, New Mexico, and Virginia).

    A quick google search pulled up this: [This year]"at least 39 states have considered more than 100 bills that affect immigrants' access to driver's licenses." Some of them moved in favor of granting licenses, while others were against it. The controversy lies in what a drivers license means. As codified in law, many states just use it as permission to use the road. It just happens that so many groups also use them as identification cards or proof of nationality, which is a bad thing.

    It seems you are a little late in your discovery.

  • by HomerJayS ( 721692 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @04:47PM (#7467775)
    Didn't they try to recount the republican counties 3 times but not the democratic counties

    Look here [infoplease.com] for a complete recap of the recount. It was Gore requesting recounts in democratic counties, not vice-versa.

    From the site: Thursday, Nov. 9--Gore's camp requests a hand recount of the approximately 1.8 million ballots cast in Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Broward, and Volusia counties, Democratic strongholds

  • by Irvu ( 248207 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @05:23PM (#7468234)
    The EFF [eff.org] is running an action alert on the Voter confidence and Increased Accessability act of 2003 which mandates public review of the machines (i.e. opening the source for review) and including paper recipts for recounts. U.S. Citizens can go here [eff.org] to submit a letter to your congressional rep.

    What's a few minutes of your time for democracy?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 13, 2003 @05:36PM (#7468404)
    Ever heard of the New Yor Times, or the LA Times, for that matter. Dumb ass. How about NPR, and the govt pays for that.
  • Re:Ugggg.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @05:51PM (#7468595) Journal
    Read my post here [slashdot.org]? IT really frightens me that Diebold is not only donating but campaigning for Bush.

    Yes you will never find any company unbiased but we need a trial and the database should be public. Hell, the code should be owned the states and government!

    People who count votes usually have both a republican and a democrat together looking over question ballets to decide. We need this as well.

    Who does count the votes anyway? Diebold??

  • by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @06:09PM (#7468811) Homepage
    Phil Donahue had the best rated program on MS-NBC (or CNBC?). He was canned because he was allowing people with views that contradicted the President's view on war. And no, this is not a liberal "conspiracy theory"; the internal memo concerning Donahue's cancellation got leaked. Go look it up.

    They put on a show, replacing Phil's, that presented some psycho right winger who eventually told a gay caller to get AIDS and die. Savage, I think his name was. His show now has zero ratings, becaue they canned his hate-filled ass. But since they knew who he was when they hired him, they obviously wanted him to say such things.

    There aren't any "liberal" (read: people who do not regularly profess hard-right viewpoints as facts) talk shows on television, none, that I can see. The few reporters who are old enough and smart enough to understand what is going on are too afraid of losing their jobs and their standing if they even utter a peep about the bias. Read about that CNN reporter who said CNN toed the Bush line hard to placate the Fox viewship; she got spanked hard. Fox went wild smearing her, proving her point. Rather said in a Euorpean interview that reporters are no longer permitted to tell the truth anymore, and that he would be "necklaced" (read South African history for a reference) if he said anything the hardrighters didn't like.

    You DON'T GET AIRED if you contradict the right-wing for very long.
  • by Watts Martin ( 3616 ) <layotl@gmail3.1415926.com minus pi> on Thursday November 13, 2003 @06:44PM (#7469207) Homepage

    While I don't want to put words in the mouth of the guy you're actually replying to, Bush didn't win the popular vote no matter how things are recounted--he won the electoral vote. And, the question of whether the way the election was actually decided was appropriate is a separate question from the vote count. Bush was, in effect, selected by the Supreme Court. Yes, you're right that subsequent investigation showed that Bush would have won the electoral vote regardless; that doesn't make me more comfortable with the way the election was resolved, because "it wouldn't have mattered anyway" isn't a sufficient rebuttal to a charge of not counting everyone's vote in a democracy.

    There's a separate question that came up a lot as to whether the electoral college should even be used, a question which is bound to come up in the rare cases like this when it seems to "thwart" the will of the people. Of course, setting aside the questions revolving around the subsequent legal case, the electoral college did exactly what it was supposed to--its point is to keep rural, sparsely populated states from having their votes overwhelmed by major population centers. (Whether it ultimately serves or hinders democracy to effectively give each resident of, say, North Dakota a greater proportional weight than each resident of New York is another question.)

  • by malibucreek ( 253318 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @07:06PM (#7469419) Homepage
    http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2001-11/10879 74.gif

    If you count every ballot on which a candidate preference could be determined, including ballots in which a voter punched the chad and then wrote in the name of that same candidate, Al Gore wins Florida by 107 votes.
  • by DavidBrown ( 177261 ) on Thursday November 13, 2003 @11:30PM (#7471151) Journal
    Time magazine recently yanked an archived article quoting Bush Sr. as basically saying that invading Iraq would not be a wise thing to do.

    The article was written in the mid 1990's, not last week. This is an important distinction to make, as your post implies that Bush the Elder disapproves of the actons of Bush the Younger.

    But your major point about Time magazine yanking their archived article off the Internet is valid and significant. Unless it was part of a routine culling of articles off their online archives in order to preserve their resources, it is certainly a great wrong to pull this, or any other article, away from free public access.

  • Re:Left vs. Right (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14, 2003 @12:49AM (#7471635)
    A) Getting a blowjob from an intern and lying about it.
    B) Producing endless propaganda about WMD and 'imminent threats' that would do the soviets proud, as a pretext to send hundreds of young men and women to die in a country you and your pals covet.

    Slight difference in severity, it seems to me, but then I could be biased. That you can equate Clinton's sins with Bush's and keep a straight face suggests that you are too. Heavily.

Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.

Working...