Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by FauxPas, Nov 6, 2006.
I say the answer is simple and just don't vote !
One interesting commentary on this I saw over the weekend on one of those Sunday morning news shows took the opposite view. Make it ultra simple like you see in other countries. A paper ballot and purple dye on the finger.
Like the old joke says:
"I don't like to vote. It just encourages them."
But aren't slot machines always rigged to favor the house? I'd want more of a standard for voting machines than that.
This is the big issue as far as I'm concerned. Anybody can count a paper ballot. Using the electronic voting machines eliminates a vast segment of the population that have the capability of determining if fraud has occurred.
they are. But they are rigged in a specific, stated way and they are inspected and checked to ensure that they really are that way and not something else.
It's really not about rigging one way or the other. It's about a very tightly controlled process for inspecting machines to ensure compliance with the rules. That exists for slots, but doesn't appear to exist for voting machines.
I concede your second point it is harder to stuff ballot boxes in a nation wide election. But human error (refer to either the voter punching the ballot OR hand counting the ballot) ensures mistakes with paper.
Properly written software and good old fashioned security (limiting and auditing access to equipment) is far safer and more covenient for voters. I voted on a touch screen today and found the verification screen an immense help - it would be nice to have those printed to a secure place in each facility as backup.
Everytime I hear paper ballot mentioned - I can't help but envision those pics from Fla where one person said the voter intended to vote for Gore and another Bush... it was just silly. I am ok with the premise, if you do not punch a ballot correctly, you have nullified that vote.
Watched the show this evening with my wife. It was quite damning.
I've been a programmer and software engineer for 20+ years but I am totally not qualified to be any sort of security expert or hacker (just not my speciality). That's why I found it even more alarming that the security flaws seemed so horrible, even to me.
No encryption, executables on the memory cards, no database journaling, MS Access data files?
There's nothing wrong with voting machines per se, it's just that for some reason the people in charge don't like to see what's in front of their faces.
Keys that open your hotel minibar shouldn't be able to open a voting machine.
No matter what the circumstance, poll workers should not get to hold a machine in their garage for weeks before an election.
Machines shouldn't be attached to the internet, ever.
A candidates last name shouldn't be dropped off the summary page, and the makers of the machine shouldn't be able to say they don't have time to fix it.
And there are many other things that seem to not make sense.
The main one is, imho every precinct in the country should have the exact same method of voting, and I don't care how much it cost the government to make it that way.
We have a House race with a difference of less than 400 votes and a mysterious 20,000 vote undercount in just one county. Because there is no paper, a manual recount is impossible. That is what's wrong with the machines. There will never be a way to explain this discrepancy. That's just wrong.
What it will (or should) cost is a Constitutional amendment. The federal government doesn't have any Constitutional authority to make the states adopt a uniform system.
Of course that won't stop them forcing it on the states anyway if they decide to, but that's a different argument.
After watching the documentary this evening, it raised a very scary question for me:
Did Pedro REALLY win?
I sent an email to all of our local news stations asking them to take a look at this. Not surprising, no responses.
You are falsly assuming that people will tell the truth when they are polled. Not to mention, what kind of mood would you be in if you waited in line for an hour to vote and then got hijacked by some yutz with a clipboard wanting you to basically vote all over again for some poll? IF I hung around for the pollster, I would lie my ass off just for the hell of it. I do it all the time when someone calls me with telephone surveys.
Of course these things can be hacked especially when you give a memory card and ask someone to hack it. How about a novel thing such as having a team of certified public accountants at each polling site to verity the authenticity of the machines and cards.
What I find much scarier is that no one requires photo Id of voters in general (at least not in New York). Even scarier still is that people get all in an uproar claiming that asking for photo Id would disenfranchise voters.
There is no assumption of truth in statistics.
In a properly conducted poll, the results adjust for false data. This is well understand in the science of statistics.
You actually think that will happen? You're fooling yourself.
A couple of points:
For those of you who haven't seen the HBO documentary, the way the Diebold machines were hacked was by pre-loading the Memory cards with "negative votes" for the candidate that they wanted to lose, ie instead of both candidates starting with 0 votes, Candidate A had 0 and Candidate B had -200. So B's first 200 votes don't count and without some kind of backup system it just looks like people didn't vote in that race (or didn't turn up to vote). This is a much easier and less detectable way to rig an election than trying to manipulate paper ballots. Note the results in the race HeySkippy mentioned.
Voters showing ID:
Massachusetts and several other states did "spot checks" of ID's several years ago, they checked the ID every nth or so voter to see if it was valid. Very little (ie almost no) instances of Voter Fraud were discovered. The current (mostly Republican led) push for Voter ID is a thinly disguised effort to disenfranchise inner city and poor voters (who tend to vote Democratic).
Rigged slot machines:
Google "Larry Volk and American Coin" for a story about someone who rigged slot machines. The relevance to this thread is that it shows slots are more able to be audited than Diebold voting machines.
I've seen it. Just reacting here to the sort of random post by sadsblebra on a thread that was last posted 7 years ago!!