What is Digg?Sponsored by Norton 2010
Cybercrime makes more money than illegal drugs. view!
everyclickmatters.com - See the top masterminds behind the biggest cyberscams ever--and what they cost us all.
176 Comments
- inactive, on 01/17/2008, -2/+114Great news. And $600 million is merely 2.5 days of the cost of the Iraq war.
- JlmAWP, on 01/17/2008, -1/+72This is really good news, but should have been done in 2004.
- rstarr, on 01/17/2008, -0/+482000*
- lewhich, on 01/17/2008, -1/+43Diebold should pay for it
- MrEthiopian, on 01/17/2008, -1/+40About time, this would be a common since approach to a flawed or hackable technology that currently can't be trusted.
- thestaton, on 01/17/2008, -0/+37I would love for the machine to print out who I voted for with a authentication number. You go home, insert the authentication number and online you can see who you voted for again, and compare your results with others.
***** Diebold. - Zarxrax, on 01/17/2008, -0/+29WHY DOES IT COST MONEY TO CONVERT TO PAPER BALLOTS???
- hamhat, on 01/17/2008, -0/+26everyone could bring a pencil (or crayon, or sharpie) and a piece of paper and then vote.
this is not rocket science.
how poor does the middle class have to get before they seriously get pissed off? I thought the middle class in America was where you could work a job and buy a house. what in the *****? - pintomp3, on 01/17/2008, -0/+22we will send the governator back to 1984. hopefully he can pass a bill before diebold goes online.
- trebuchet03, on 01/17/2008, -0/+18It's about ***** time...
- Chiefster, on 01/17/2008, -1/+18BRILLIANT!
- toasty168, on 01/17/2008, -0/+12oh please make this happen and give me an inkling of hope that america isn't headed for the *****
- arbouler, on 01/17/2008, -1/+12Diebold DIE!
- consoneo, on 01/17/2008, -0/+11There's no wondering here, trust me.
- michaelb1, on 01/17/2008, -0/+11 I'll gladly pay $600 mil for a more secure voting system.
Odd that it's been 8 years since the 2000 election debacle and we just get around to appropriating funds for this 10 months before the election. Give that congressman a medal. - PropCulture, on 01/17/2008, -0/+10If you do not agree with this bill, please explain why. PLEASE.
- ethanpack, on 01/17/2008, -0/+10Both*
- ethanpack, on 01/17/2008, -4/+13I'm an Independent who identifies much more with the Democratic side of things, but let's not go too crazy blaming the NeoCons for everything. Seriously, some people throw around the term "NeoCon" like it's some sort of new faction in the Transformers universe.
- Jareth86, on 01/17/2008, -2/+10Neocon refers to the new type of conservatives that seem to have emerged recently. These conservatives, rather than favoring individual liberties, leans towards government enforcement of their personal philosophies and beliefs.
In this case, every single congressman that falls under the category of "neocon" universally voted to get diebold machines stuck in our communities. Tell me you don't smell a rat. - pintomp3, on 01/17/2008, -0/+8but how many libraries of congress is it?
- coryking, on 01/17/2008, -0/+8Sure, and then you can go online with your boss behind you to check that you voted for the "right" canidate or get fired?
Anonymous voting is a cornerstone of our voting system. The minute you make it possible to trace a vote back to an individual, things become very prone to corruption. - Shmigget, on 01/17/2008, -0/+8Every other system in the world has an audit trail except for many electronic voting machines. This is long overdue.
- rstarr, on 01/17/2008, -0/+8I smell a sequel...
- UtubReptilian, on 01/17/2008, -1/+9You are 100% right. The following documentary exposes the vulnerability of Diebold and other computers - which count approximately 80% of America's votes in county, state and federal elections - suggesting that if our votes aren't safe, then our democracy isn't safe either. http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hacking_Demo ...
- Syko360, on 01/17/2008, -6/+13Computers are the future of voting. With the electronic voting system in place you don't even need a brother that is a Governor to steal an election.
- tmonax, on 01/17/2008, -0/+7How can we actually help this happen? Should we write our senators, contact our representatives? The article didnt even mention the name of the bill or the sponsor... Lets make this actually happen!
- greenlight2001, on 01/17/2008, -0/+7Paying the people to count them. Security during the lengthy count. Printing costs. Transportation of thousands of ballots. Etc etc etc... cost money my friend.
- DreKor, on 01/17/2008, -1/+8I'm pretty sure the middle class, for the most part, has sought and received higher education. Unfortunately, that education doesn't always count for a lot. With a 4-year degree you should be able to land something better than $9.50/hour.
- MeatBiProduct, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6Its like the bloods and the crips accept theres a lot more jack offs in the mix.
- cigawoot, on 01/17/2008, -3/+9Elections are not the place to save paper. You need to have a traceable system that can be double or triple verified for accuracy. Computers are not reliable enough to handle the most important task in the United States. I like how Iowa does their voting, its a straight forward optical scan form that can be double checked later by hand if necessary. The Diebold voting machines currently in place in many states do not have paper trails, which can lead to tampering and screwing of election results.
- treed, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6A decade before we even had a president?
- relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -1/+7So.. you're implying he has a hidden agenda by trying to bring transparency to the election process?
- androo, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6"this is not rocket science."
funny you should say that because Rush Holt's bumper stickers read "My congressman IS a rocket scientist" - darkhand, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6Because you have multiple humans, each with a desire for fairness, overseeing the process. There will be multiple people counting the vote... People who are completely impartial, people who want one candidate to win, people who want another to win. If someone tries to sway things, one of the others is going to call them on it.
- Spoomeister, on 01/17/2008, -0/+5I'm sure you'd love to go back online and confirm who you voted for.
So would AT&T, random hackers, and everyone else in between your computer and that "authentication number" site. - seraphisset, on 01/17/2008, -0/+5Makes sense!
- inactive, on 01/17/2008, -1/+6hope this passes, the electronic machines sure to seem fishy.
- MeatBiProduct, on 01/17/2008, -1/+6Computers run the entire financial system of the world. If that system failed voting would be pointless. Sorry but voting isn't the most important task in the united states, maybe to some citizens - but stability of the system itself falls on computer systems and you trust them everyday with your fiscal life.
- nbrntrt, on 01/17/2008, -1/+6How are the neocons suppose to steal an elections with this much of an audit trail? My guess is they will figure out how to make sure it doesn't happen for this election. It really is a shame too.
- consoneo, on 01/17/2008, -1/+6Probably before they decided to make voting electronic, they should have banned it. Electronics are a lot harder to control, since they have non-concrete data storage. I have zero confidence in those Diebold pieces of work.
- Jareth86, on 01/17/2008, -8/+13The neocons will never let this happen.
- michaelb1, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4Who cares. $600 mil is a bargain for this.
- jsuther, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4Unfortunately boycotting voting does seem to work too well in recent history. Two voting boycotts come to mind, the Sunni's in Iraq forming the Iraqi congress and the moderates in Iran a few years back. Both boycotting parties seem to have been left out in the cold afterwards.
- michaelb1, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4I think party does mean something considering most of the laws passed in the last 8 years were voted on almost perfectly along party lines.
Lets not forget Bush Vs. Gore in 2000 when the supreme court voted exactly along party lines. - forgiste, on 01/17/2008, -2/+6We're gonna win this thing.
- Firehed, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4Well theory being, it would verify who you had voted for, and thus somewhere there's a legitimate DB of what happened. Of course, it would be trivial to then obfuscate the results after the initial lookup under the assumption that nobody is going to go back and re-verify. It also brings the problem of people being forced to vote one way (illegal, but it happens) since there would be a trail brought home with you that your boss/spouse/evil person could use to know you voted whichever way you were told to do so.
- temjrpgh, on 01/17/2008, -2/+6It's not so great news. My fear is this bill will give people a false sense of security. The Federal Gov't screws everything up it touches. I wonder what blackboxvoting has to say about this. On the surface it sounds good, but what has the government done for YOU lately? Not too much. I'd prefer to have a citizen organization that sets policy, audits, and oversees the voting process funded by personal donations and worked by volunteers. Policy would mean rules like "There MIUST be multiple convergent sources of evidence available, audited by multiple people of differing political affiliations", and "all electronic voting systems MUST be open source on an open architecture". I just don't trust the government to do right for us.
- michaelb1, on 01/17/2008, -2/+6Your right, he is wrong. The middle class IS the educated class. It's the backbone of a democracy. When it dies, democracy dies.
Edwards is the only one overtly making a big fuss about demise of the middle class. Obama seems to get it though. I think he understands better then Edwards. Obama is pretty much middle class. He's barely a millionaire and he came on his fortunes later in life. I believe he is the poorest guy in the race. - manixrock, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4You're not the first to have thought about this. The main problem is voting has to be a workable mix between anonymity of vote and reliability of the vote count. Both are essential. Anonymity is especially essential in states where the controlling government is actively persecuting those who during the elections vote against them. The vote count is the problem right now.
"Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Stalin
Sacrificing one for the other is not a solution. Any link between the voter and the vote (like an authentication's number) can be used to trace how he voted and be persecuted for it, unless the number is generated randomly and remembered by the voter at the time of the vote (so only he knows it). This preserves anonymity as he could go to any computer in the world and anonymously access the database to verify the vote, however creates a problem of reliability since human memory is fallible and proving reliably that your vote has been changed is next to impossible (You would have to prove conclusively that you remember both your vote and the number exactly). - elcamino, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4you would have to make the entire vote database available online, with each reference number (see fireburner23's comment) and who they voted for. That way anyone could verify that their vote was counted, and anyone could verify the actual result of the election.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 181 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is