What is Digg?49 Comments
- reeder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33Watch out for the Bush veto.
- dmightx, on 09/21/2008, -1/+30I don't know what the hell people are thinking. Paper trail is REALLY logical. I hope it passes.
- shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24Make it open source, let there be audits, and force it to be transparent. Otherwise this democracy is nothing but a sham. And by the way, http://www.mininova.org/tor/643018
- TeCuervo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Doesn't have to be GPLd! As long as people can scrutinize the source code.
- theodicey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12From the article, Harold Snider from the National Federation for the Blind (NFB) seems to think that any questioning of computerized voting will delay its universal adoption and hurt blind people, some of whom have to rely on family or friends to help them vote by mail.
But then, his objection might just be because Diebold is paying his salary by giving $1 million contributions to the NFB. Somehow I doubt Congress asked him about that, even though it's a matter of public record. - NetCaptive, on 02/18/2009, -1/+12About ***** time
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10DO IT!!
this is necessary to protect our country
bad news, they will be voting on this bill with recordless e-voting machines ;) - apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Unfortunately, there are still problems with this bill. A 'paper trail' is not the same thing as a paper ballot, and this bill even refers to so called 'paper trails' as paper ballots, which they are not. In many cases, the little paper roll where voter choices are backed up cannot be easily seen or verified by the voter. And regardless of what the article implies, in case of problems, this 'paper trail' is often not even required to be counted, so if it doesn't match the votes recorded internally, it won't matter one whit.
Direct recording electronic machines still need to be banned, which this bill doesn't do. The system is still 'gameable.'
Just fair warning, folks. I'm not against this, but in some ways it's just another coat of varnish on a turd. Don't let your guard down on this issue.
The problems with this bill are covered at election integrity sites like http://www.bradblog.com and http://www.blackboxvoting.org - TeCuervo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7And you would sugest Anarchy for a country of 300,000,000 people... You are not too smart are you?
What do you do for a living? - PLUMCRAZY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6People do need to learn the difference between a paper trail and a paper ballott. If I re-program a voting machine to cheat, how hard would it be to print what the voter asked for and then tally what I want.
The easiest solution is still the best solution. SCANTRON This is the best technology to combine a paper ballott and electronic counting.
I'm all for almost all the suggestions listed in the article. The problem is the people deciding on these systems are the same people who are currently cheating the system.
p.s. This is not a Democrat vs. Republican problem. Most problems with voter fraud happens at the local level where the results have the most impact on individual citizens and where the media does very little to look into the problems. - deadsenator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Watch Hacking Democracy. We need to work harder to improve our voting system with independent verification and keep all companies out that have political interests.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hGZtPCFeIhg - crystalsmoke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The Holt bill is a big step in the right direction. To really protect our voting rights, though, it's essential to close the DRE loopholes.
"The bill must be amended to require real, firsthand voter-marked paper ballots[1] (counted by hand or by optical scanner) and to ban the use of direct recording electronic (DRE) voting systems, which have proven themselves to be dangerously unreliable and only produce secondhand machine-printed paper trails that require voter-verification as a separate step by each voter."
http://www.votersunite.org/info/HR811EssentialRevisions.htm - TeCuervo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4As long as no one can be identified with the paper trail and they do it in a receipt sort of way.
But yeah, about "f"in time. - DoctaStooge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Thank god I voted for Rush Holt last time he was up.
- RoskMachine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Next step: get rid of the Military-Industrial Complex!
- pegothejerk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Thank heavens there's going to be a paper trail for the way congress votes on this.
- stepnw1f, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Get rid of evoting and go back to paper. Bush and his buddies are in power because of them.
- PorkCharSui, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm not quite sure how a paper trail will make voting safer and more secure other than giving a voter assurance that a machine received input. Nothing stops a malicious voting machine from printing out the "correct" vote while digitally recording the vote for a different candidate. A paper vote could easily be forged as well if the machine's stored votes came into question and election officials resorted to a paper receipt recount.
The only solution to this would be the requirement for secure, open code, that election officials can install and be confidant that it will not be tampered with. One of the problems with the last California eVoting debacle was that certified election software was updated at the last minute before the election with an uncertified version.
Save trees and skip a paper trail. - lulzlulzlulz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3About time.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4we dont have time for true democracy ;)
lets just let hackable electronic machines decide for us
/roll - fraterm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I almost think that Corporations should as a condition of their corporate status (if they have gone that route) as pseudo-persons be required to lobby according to the democratic will of their employees, or not at all.
- Amablue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The only concern I have that seems even halfway founded is that the audits might take too long and delay the results, but there's so many ways around that that it shouldn't be a big issue.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Thank you again Democrats, you can do more, but this is good stuff!
- RoskMachine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If we must put it in physical terms, power is more like a tower than a vacuum, since it must be built up before it can be seriously used. Thus, while people may inhabit towers continuously, moving in quite naturally when others move out, when the tower itself is not there it cannot simply be taken.
Of course, the nature of the reactions to my post is how we know that all of this talk about "power vacuums" is just propaganda: people spout it out without thinking in one liners (most often quite condescendingly).
@ knomevol
Please educate yourself on anarchist theory before you dismiss it out of hand. Your unthinking, kneejerk reaction serves only those in power, not your own mind, which I assure you when you tap into it will be quite powerful and exhilerating. - RoskMachine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ footballdude
Maybe when people were disarmed by the previous government and if the society in question is not predominantly made up of anarchists.
I think that it's advisable to remember that the Nazis were the successors of the first welfare state in the history of the world--they weren't the invaders of an anarchist society. Meanwhile, the United States had a miniscule government for most of its history, and has only recently become seriously bent on Empire, and even now it is a kitten compared to just about every other empire in history. So I would say that the evidence points toward the exact opposite conclusion from the one you give: it is only when there are mechanisms firmly in place to weild power over citizens does totalitarianism come about. Power is not just something can be taken, it must be developed. - knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1oh! you mean "anarchy" like occurred during katrina in the dome.
yeah... that's reasonable. - RoskMachine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's spam, man. Digg it down, and be at peace like the lonely Rhinoceros
- look4alec, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I honestly couldn't care less if my vote was anonymous. I am willing to give up the anonymity to ensure the validity of my vote.
Why not assign numbers to every voter so that they can confirm their own vote later on? Everyone should be able to check who they voted for with their 'voter ID' or SSN* to make sure it is an accurate account.
* made up this term
The only loop hole in this is people who haven't really voted being recorded as a vote, and older people who wouldn't be aware of the system or able to re-check their vote. - fuzzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2From anarchy comes totalitarianism, almost without fail. A power vacuum is just waiting to be taken advantage of.
- kingygk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is too little too late. The democrats will screw this up also.
- RoskMachine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3That's kind of funny, people just throw objections at you and without waiting to hear your response they condemn you as stupid.
Anarchy for a country of 300 million people? Well, I certainly don't propose having countries at all, much less a country of 300 million. Quite frankly, that is an ill-thought out and nonsensical objection, especially given that countries don't exist.
And I know I'm not living in anarchy, dingus. I was talking about how it feels to be an anarchist. Learn how to spell before you question the intelligence of others. - FloppyLlamaDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Out of curiosity, does anyone have any logical (not political) reasons as to why this would/should NOT pass?
- fraterm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am commencing my rejoicing.
We need some light in our voting processes, lest the cockroaches (Equal Opportunity Assertion:whether labelled with an R or a D or an L or a G or whatever) take advantage of complexity in the shadows. Not that the new technology has created the problem, scamming votes has a long tradition in history, It shouldn't increase confusion and decrease sensible processes in voting however. - ericsemail, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you read the article they mention a few--I wouldn't argue as to the validity of their arguments--but they exist.
- knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Anarchy = Better have a lot of ammo to defend your wife, children, home, belongings, don't sleep, get a pack of german shepards. sounds like a waste of time.
- atb12688, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3What i don't understand is that if E-Voting stops, paper ballots will still be counted by an optical device, which is connected to a COMPUTER which could be hacked just as easily. Its not like the GOP hacked anything in 06 anyway as they were clearly edged out but the DEMs. If anything the DEMs are now hacking E-Voting.
- apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Update to my previous comment: here's a list of the problems with the Holt bill, and a long list of voters' rights organizations against it:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/46667.html?1171504136 - r81984, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Their only arguments against it is the printers can break, paper trail will discourage adoption of evoting machines, and paper trails are worthless because they are less accurate.
Those who made these claims are stupid and should be ousted for being so stupid.
-printers can break-
True, but look at retailers walmart and walgreens. Their thermal printers can work years without problems and are highly reliable. All you need to do is change the paper when it runs out, which you can use an annoying auditable signal or flashing light on top when the paper is low. Why cant they use that perfected technology for evoting machines?
-paper trail will discourage adoption of evoting machines-
People will be stubborn and will not want to spend money regardless, so its pointless to accomodate them. There is no way you can find an educated person who says a paper trail is a bad idea. Without a paper trail there is no way to audit the machines or still have a valid count if a machine crashes. Without redundency were asking for trouble if there is a virus or some kind of failure.
-paper trails are worthless because they are less accurate-
That is the dumbest statement ever. I think it was already proven by diebold that evoting can be much less accurate then paper voting. With out a physical backup, if there is a problem with the digital results there will be no way to have an accurate count without a paper trail.
Any congressperson who votes against the idea of paper ballots as a backup is unfit to be a leader of this country. - cayennenator, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Not so useful, but... I've always liked posts like that. Dugg.
- sarahmaddelson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0So... sweet!
- Naidim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://campaigns.wikia.com/index.php?title=Forum:A_Proposal_for_an_Electronic_Voting_System
- ericsemail, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1wth is this crap? ^---------
- NX910a, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"and disclosure of voting machine source code"
I knew Richard Stallman was behind this - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2umm. your dumb?
your not living in an anarchy numnuts - RoskMachine, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Wow, being an anarchist is so relaxing. If I were still a Statist, I would forever be grating my teeth over the endless tiny issues that arise from this screwed up congregation of individuals we call the government. Democracy is always a sham, no matter how many audits you force the system to undergo.
Anarchism = healthy blood pressure - bioncinola, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3too little too late
the hated Neocon Conspirtors have seeded the Earth's destruction!!!!!!!!
BLOW THEM IT ITTY BITTY BIITTSSSSS!!!!!
BADABLAAAAMAMAMAMAMMMM!!!!
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is