Maryland Governor Wants Paper Ballots 433
supabeast! writes, "Fed up with all the problems in the state's electronic voting system, Maryland Governor Robert Erlich wants the state to scrap the entire system and return to paper ballots. He's threatened to call a special session of the legislature to change the law to allow paper ballots. What makes this particularly interesting is that Erlich is a Republican — the party often maligned for exploiting flaws in electronic systems — and his attempts to clean up Maryland's voting problems are being opposed by Democrats, the party that is usually complaining about electronic voting!"
Partisanship (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Paper ballots makes dead people voting difficul (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Paper ballots makes dead people voting difficul (Score:4, Informative)
There was a question as to whether votes for Kerry were on machines before the polls opened in 2004 [command-post.org]. If you've been in this city you know that Unions only protect one ticket and either scare [cavalierdaily.com] or beat up [nilrr.org] the other.
Philadelphia has a lot of things - a two party system isn't one of them.
What's most amusing about Democrat charges is that they try to blame Governor's or the Federal system whereas vote control occurs at the local level.
(And I won't even get into the NJSC replacing Torch with Lautenberg.)
Re:Paper ballots makes dead people voting difficul (Score:2)
Re:Paper ballots makes dead people voting difficul (Score:2)
That's also why we don't want to have ID requirements. A great many people don't have state issued id's, since they don't drive.
Let's turn this around: Republicans, being a minority, want to see as many restrictions and hoops as possible on voting, because it helps them. That explains their support for measures that are biased against people w
Re: (Score:2)
Well said!
Now the only problem is to get "teh masses" to see this...Im at a loss there, but you're spot on.
Re: (Score:2)
That is an easily solvable problem: provide free state ID to those without one.
Let's turn this around: Republicans, being a minority, want to see as many restrictions and hoops as possible on voting, because it helps them. That explains their support for measures that are biased against people who vote for Democrats typically.
Um, what country do you live in? In the U.S., the Repub
Re: (Score:2)
Did you not read the article, which accused the GOP of "exploiting flaws in electronic systems"? So answer this: if the GOP is known for exploiting flaws in electronic systems, why would they be trying to move to paper ballots?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just answer my first question
Pudge, please look up malign in the dictionary (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, yes, it does. [reference.com] It necessarily implies false. That's from dictionary.com, which is based on the Random House dictionary. Merriam Webster says this: "MALIGN suggests specific and often subtle misrepresentation but may not always imply deliberate lying." Cambridge says "to say false and unpleasant things about someone or
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i think the original poster was referring to the democratic party's 'machine' style politics of the 20's-40's. intimidation, registering dead people, graft, ballot stuffing... all that stuff. wikipedia has an acceptable article on the chicago democratic machine here [wikipedia.org].
of course, that was 60 or 70 years ago and the shenanigans of the democratic party did not rely on the ballots bei
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You just hear less about it nationally than the Diebold stuff because it's Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, I remember watching local news reports of similar events during th
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> intimidation, registering dead people, graft, ballot stuffing... all that stuff. wikipedia has an acceptable
> article on the chicago democratic machine here.
Whitewash all ya want, truth is every case of actual vote fraud that changed the outcome of an election has been Democrats doing what comes natural to em; cheating.
You would be hard pressed these days to find a historian who would a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats an easy one. The republicans want to move back to paper ballots. Of course the democrats will take the opposite stance.
Little do they know its a trap. See, after the democrats fight tooth and nail to oppose paper ballots the republicans will simply agree with them. WHAM. Democrats have no more right to bitch about electronic voting. Sneaky republicans..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Partisanship (Score:4, Insightful)
I, a Republican, was in the local county paper on Tuesday morning criticizing the County Auditor over all-mail voting. I was also a candidate in the primary, on the ballot (unopposed), that same day. But my name was actually hidden on the electronic voting machine ballot. You could not see my name to vote for me. And my name was the only one this happened to: me, the guy in the paper that day criticizing the Auditor.
If I were a Democrat and he a Republican, chances are, this would be front-page news everywhere. "Republicans manipulate voting machines to keep Democrat off ballot." But since I am a Republican and I realize it was probably merely an unfortunate coincidence, I just post about it, but don't make it into a big deal.
So excuse me for thinking that criticisms pointed at Republicans being the ones who manipulating elections, are a bunch of garbage; I see firsthand -- with all the problems in WA in 2000 and 2004, including the unreported ones -- that it's just not true.
There is simply no truth to the implications that Republicans manipulate elections more than Democrats (and I tend to believe it is the other way around, though since I have always lived in Democrat states -- CA, MA, WA -- that certainly colors my perspective). It's just that for whatever reasons, the stuff about Republicans gets more press, and less benefit-of-the-doubt.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not sure offhand. It happens occasionally. Not sure if it has ever happened two elections in a row. You seem to be implying that it happened recently; but Bush won the so-called "popular vote" in 2004. Had Kerry managed to win Ohio, and nothing else changed, Bush would have won the "popular vote" and lost the election, but that's not wha
Not an problem (Score:3, Funny)
Not a problem: Diebold will get into the pre-checked ballot printing business.
Re:Not an problem (Score:5, Informative)
No large cries of fraud (IIRC there were a few localized incidents that were more human error than machine/trust errors). It went smoothly.
Unfortunately, the election business in the US is far too much money to go that well. When states start offering contracts in the tens of millions of dollars for "voting equipment" and "election consulting", you're just asking for problems.
Outsourcing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Still, what India has done is to effectively remove the ballot from its citizens, since the new "ballots" aren't physical and no one can hold or point to (or effectly audit or forensically evaluate) such a thing.
Electronic data is fine for identity-based transactions (having to do with bank accounts
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, however, the Federal government has never been ceded authority to fully regulate elections in the individual States. Much of this authority has been retained by the States themselves. Too, each state is generally responsible for the costs and management of the elections it conducts, and different solutions work for different states. In the state of North Dakota, for example, the s
Mistake (Score:3, Funny)
Why the reversal? (Score:5, Insightful)
The way politics works these days is as follows:
In the red states, the Republican party is crooked as hell.
In the blue states, the Democratic party is crooked as hell.
Re:Why the reversal? (Score:5, Insightful)
The losing party thinks election results are being modified by the winning party.
The winning party thinks the election results are just fine.
I never understood why people were so silly around here to think that the Republicans are the only dirty party? As far as I'm concerned, Al Gore is just mad that George Bush was able to 'modify' more votes than he could.
Re:Why the reversal? (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the first thing Clinton did when he got in office? While pretending to deal with gays in the military (Lots of discussion), he quietly used all his might to push NAFTA through.
NAFTA is simply a gimme to corporate interests, it is one of those issues that is completely conservative, anti-democrat.
What does Bush do? Try to make illegal imigration legal and get more mexicans into the country? Conservatives hate this, dems are supposed to be somewhat okay with it, but again, corporate interests love it. If you really wanted to stop immigration, you'd just set up some serious fines or jailtime for employing immigrants. It'll never happen.
Why do they fight so hard for elections if they are the same party? Splitting the republicrat party into two wings and having them battle for control is a great system!
After seeing what Bush can do, the far left-wing doesn't dare vote green, and if fox can keep coming up with reasons to hate clinton, it'll keep the far right-wing away from voting libretarian.
So the infighting actually secures both parties.
My personal solution is, except in presidential positions or positions where there is actually a "Good" republicrat canidate, I always vote for an alternitave independent--even Libretarian (Which I'm kind of against). If you're ultra-conservative and you can vote dem, repub or green--start voting green. Until they actually start winning elections, all you are doing is showing support for the alternative parties.
If you think your vote makes a difference in the presidental election, go ahead and vote republican or dem, but in other elections, stay away from the republicrats!
---------------
Why doesn't slashdot have a spellcheck function?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Bill Clinton was the best Republican President we ever had."
--Michael Moore
The idea that the Clintons were these wild-eyed radical lefties never ceases to amuse me.
Re:Why the reversal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey Ralph Nader, you got your guy into office, you can stop this line now. Yes, the Democrats attract the same venal and base scum as the Republicans, but let's talk about what's going on now, and that's that the GOP is controlled by folks like PNAC [newamericancentury.org], who are some seriously scary Amerika Uber Alles folks. To say nothing of the religious right. Both of these overtly fascist movements operate with the blessing and these days, funding of the GOP.
So yeah, goddamn skippy there is a difference. Don't talk to me about theoreticals, the ones who have the power have to go, and if I have to vote a straight blue ticket to do it, so be it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For a person in party X, party !X is crooked as hell. Party X is justified in 'bending' the rules because it's only to deal with something party !X has done.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, Mr. Wizzerd, maybe you'd like to make like Tom Cruise and do some research?
http://www.elections.state.md.us/citizens/voting_s ystems/ [state.md.us]
Scroll down to the bottom section titled "Voting System Selection and Procurement"
It says, in part:
Re: (Score:2)
And the fact that both parties are like that suggests that, perhaps, it has more to do with human nature than political parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
And for those of you voting for your "team" regardless of the actual issues and goals are doing the country just as large a disservice.
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that the real debate in Washington is how best to distract citizens from the real issues facing our country and the world. The polarization of the parties is simply a ploy to get americans to react on an emotional level instead of examining issues from a logical perspective.
Re:Surprised? (Score:4, Informative)
You rarely see any politicians talking abortion, gun control, or flag burning in odd-numbered years.
Politics of sports (Score:4, Insightful)
Amen, Brother. They have turned politics into a sports show, pitting your favorite team against your favorite team's enemy. If you love the Browns, you hate the Steelers. That's just the way it is. You root for the Browns, or whoever is playing the Steelers. Life is great as long as the Browns win and the Steelers lose.
As long as politics are like that, life is simple. You don't have to look at the voting record, public statements, or platform of a candidate. You just have to know their color, red or blue or some color not red or blue. You don't have to weigh the actions of a politician, you just have to say we have to support him because he's our President (or governor, or police chief, or what-have-you).
Life is simple then. People like simple. It's all red or blue, no shades of purple.
A friend of mine (hi, Thor) is a republican. Except for that, he and I are very much the same. He's a good guy. He supports democracy, and constitutional freedom, and peace. He and I have the same ideals, we just have different thoughts on how best to achieve (or maintain) those ideals.
The blood in our veins is blue. The blood in our arteries is red. It's never as simple as one vs. the other, and I wish those in charge would stop exploiting the sports-mentality to distract us from domestic and international troubles.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you in principle, but at the highest levels of government (I'm looking at you, U.S. Congress), voting for your "team" is often the only way to get anything even close to what you want. On the vast majority of issues, the vast majority of the people in Congress will vote the same way everyone else in their party votes. Even if the person you elect spells out a
Re: (Score:2)
In my country they don't even pretend anymore to govern in the name some Greater Good - it's all about namecalling and pleasing your fanbois by attacking your opponent's ideas, even when they are clearly better.
People criticize me for not voting. I criticize them for supporting this travesty called democracy - which, I dare remind everybody, translates DIRECTLY to "mob rule".
Retards... they're all retards (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Retards... they're all retards (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two prominent Democrats on the elections committee, and obviously the committee fucked up due to the elections issues. The two 'Democrats' mentioned in the article are those two on this committee whose asses are now on the line for the fuckups so of course these two are trying to fight saying they've been doing a good job so far.
There hasn't been any general opposition by the Maryland Democratic Party, or even amongst a larger Democratic contingent. Erlich turned this into a partisan issue by pounding on the election irregularities by pointing to the incompetence of the election board, which has Democrats in the top spots. The race between Erlich and O'Malley for governor is quite ugly, these two have been bitter political rivals for the past few years already and there has been much ugliness previously (I've lived in Baltimore the past few years. O'Malley is the Democratic Baltimore mayor challenging Erlich, while Erlich is the Republican governor).
Erlich has been a political douchebag tool since he took office, he ignored election problems in Baltimore in 2004, for instance, and fully supported using the Diebold machines. And he mildly brushed aside criticism of the Ohio 2004 election irregularities. He's not some election hero, he's just your typical political opportunist, suddenly supporting an issue he previously ignored just becuase it's politically favorable for him to do so.
Remember, this guy is a candidate for governor, damn near everything he does in the spotlight has a political bent to it. He saw an opportunity and pounced on it.
Re:Retards... they're all retards (Score:4, Informative)
Now that the money is spent, he says we should use a paper system, throwing away what we have. The democrats are saying "hey, idiot, we already spent the money, let's make it work since you were so gung-ho for it."
So if we're talking about flipped political personalities, the Republican is a flip flopper, and the democrats are fiscally responsible!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that's the definition of partisanship. Bipartisanship is exactly the opposite.
Great example of partisanship! And to think, all this time you thought you were being bipartisan.
Weird... (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't see how anyone could argue this point (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't care (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if Maryland's machines are already of the sort that have an electronic interface but produce a paper ballot that the voter can examine and then put in the ballot box, then it seems less of a big deal to me, and is probably a stunt to dis
Exactly (Score:2)
Democratic Hackers (Score:2)
Bias (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for showing your bias submitter. The story stood up on its own without you injecting partisan hackery into the summary. Enjoy the ensuing flamewar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I believe that the submitter was framing the discussion as a Democrat vs Republican issue when that is really irrelevant to the discussion.
The core of the matter is tha a Governor is switching from Electronic voting back to paper voting. Throwing in the remark about Democrats vs Republicans just seems trollish to me
Why it is partisan (Score:2)
"Erlich is a Republican -- the party often maligned for exploiting flaws in electronic systems"
Essentially, republicans blamed for twisting the vote
Show evidence of Republicans or Democrats exploiting flaws in electronic voting - there might be some, but it is too easy to merely commit voter fraud via non IT means because you can pretend to be someone that died 5 years ago and people cannot ask you for your ID.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome aboard. Down the hall you'll find vi vs. emacs, Macs vs. PC, Linux vs. FreeBSD, and Perl vs. everything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For what its worth I would have tossed a +1 your way.
At least someone's sane (Score:2)
-uso.
More provisional ballots on site (Score:3, Interesting)
have enough paper provisional ballots at the ready to complete the election in case of complete machine failure. One of many problems in the recent primaries was an inadequate supply of provisional ballots to cover all the cases that led to their use.
Next step beyond that would be to permit any voter who wants it, to use one of the paper provisional ballots instead of using the voting machine.
Party leanings? (Score:2)
It's easier... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's easier to make accusations of cheating when you lose instead of accepting responsibility. This is one of the reasons I hate politicians so much. "Oh, we lost... So the other guys MUST be cheating!" Go home to your mommies.
as an MD'er, I don't think you understand (Score:4, Funny)
As a Maryland Democrat, I don't think you understand. We aren't the party that is usually complaining about electronic voting; we are the party that is usually complaining. PERIOD.
/I just calls 'em likes I sees 'em
//I complain about the ICC [iccstudy.org], too!
DUH. (Score:2)
Two words for you... Cook county
The biased party line from Supabeast (Score:2)
That comment strikes me as overly partisan and anti-republican.
If you are going to mention efforts to clean up voting, mention the recent house vote.
Democrats voted *AGAINST* requirements for presenting your ID to
Re: (Score:2)
Which is an overly partisan and anti-republican statement.
Democrats are opposed to this, because they recognize that the only reason why Republicans are pushing for it is to disenfranchise groups of voters and keep them from the polls. Disenfranchise people who aren't eligible? No. People who don't have picture ID for whatever reason.
So it's rather funny that you whine about bias, and post your own.
Re: (Score:2)
You can look at the House record also. It says "Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4844) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require any individual who desires to register or re-register to vote in an election for Federal office to provide the appropriate State election official with proof that the individual is a citizen of the US"
I put that into plain english.
Going to claim that is biased too? Checkmate.
Re: (Score:2)
However, in this case, no mention was made of bad attachments as justifications for voting against the bill.
As good as your point is, it is moot unless that is the reason behind all the nays (though it clear that the vote is a straight party line vote for the most part).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And it's not disenfranchisement either. You need ID as a prerequisite to get a job, cash checks (and even if you are poor, welfare checks, other government assistance), open a bank account, etc. I don't know how anybody could not have an ID unless it was a matter of purposefully not wanting one. I mean, when you are born, you get a birth certificate (which I believe is enough to prove ID under the proposed law)
Re: (Score:2)
What people still haven't been able to sufficiently explain is exactly how having a picture ID will disenfranchise voters. Especially when the majority of these efforts have gone hand-in-hand with offers to provide free ID's to anyone who didn't have one.
What's so wrong with making sure that someone only votes once?
Between this
...or maybe I'm just not cynical enough? (Score:2)
This is not about Democrats or Republicans. It's about the security and future of the country.
and i think (Score:2)
up here in Canada, we're still using paper ballots in every federal election. no need for any error-prone card-punching machine. just take your pen and drawn an X in the circle of you guy you want to vote for. simple!
anyone who advocates computerized voting needs a reality check in the form of a brick upside the head.
why no one can clue in on this down there...
Re: (Score:2)
The man you call "the only sane person in the US Government" isn't part of the US Government. He's the governor of Maryland.
Here's a thought... (Score:2)
Why not have a user go into a booth, make their election choices, and have a printout they submit? That way you have the best of both worlds - automated counting and a paper backup.
Warning: Maryland Resident Punditry (Score:2, Informative)
Ballots from 1988 and earlier (I believe; my memory is fuzze) were conducted with a purely mechanical system: you'd pull a big lever to draw the curtain, decide, pull down levers (which would bring down red plastic arrows indicating who you were voting for), and the act of pulling the lever to open the curtain would count the levers you'd pulled down. Being mechanical, they could be a little persnickety.
The 1996 and 2000 balloting where I was in Maryland was conducted using a standardized ballot, a black
TFP IS WRONG,,,, (Score:2)
It's a bait and switch (Score:3, Interesting)
Support this! (Score:2)
Either send his office an email [state.md.us] or give him a call. Non-MD residents can call his office at 800-811-8336, local residents can call 410-974-3591.
I'm not from Maryland, nor do I live there, but I just called and wrote Mr. Ehrlich's office to show my support for eliminating these machines fro
Beyond the pale... (Score:2)
>What makes this particularly interesting
>is that Erlich is a Republican -- the
>party often maligned for exploiting
>flaws in electronic systems -- and his
>attempts to clean up Maryland's voting
>problems are being opposed by Democrats,
>the party that is usually complaining
>about electronic voting!"
I suppose that you have forgotten that those claims of manipulating electronic votes were not valid, and typical hyper-partisan drivel. Maybe it has been repeated as
I'm a Marylander (Score:2)
Of course, Maryland carried the Democrats in the last two presidential elections, so Diebold must not be focusing thier effors here.
US 2 party politics (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not that simple and it's pretty unreasonable to make such baseless claims against the party as a whole.
I think the interesting thing is how many of the very powerful and respected politicians are making significant breaks with their party. In the US this infighting seems to be much more common when they're arguing with the president.
I think it is important to note that many if not most from both parties who really want to have fair elections, even if they're not quite sure how to achieve that.
Right wing political mail (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't blame him (Score:3, Informative)
I urge everyone to request absentee ballots early. I don't want my vote disappearing in a Diebold machine.
Your Party Sucks! (Score:3, Funny)
Your party is corrupt. Your party is money-grubbing and is only concerned about their own power.
Only idiots vote for a party that is as non-logical as yours. Your party has been taken over by extremists who only want to destroy the United States as we know it!!
Your party is nothing but a bunch of Useful Idiots who support the New World Order!!
Your party doesn't even care about the people any more. Your party is only worried about getting more money from Special Interests.
Look at all of the voting fraud your party is involved in. Do you know why your party doesn't complain more loudly about vote fraud? It's because your party doesn't want the extend of their own involvement known to the general public! It would destroy your party!
Your party only fields idiots and crooks for office. They have to be idiots to support the things that your party believes in. You, know things like gay marriage, abortion, and the war? Idiots! I, however, will not associate with idiots, so I belong to my party.
Sure, my party has a few crooks in it, but I would never support it if it had as many crooks as your party does.
Because the dangerous party is the one in power (Score:4, Insightful)
Crooked elections perpetuate the rule of whoever's in charge.
One key virtue of democracy is that it allows throwing out incompetent, dishonest, or damaging rulers (if anyone cares) without blood in the street. Crooked elections hurt because they block the vital function of throwing the bums out and putting another set of bums in.
The only reason vote fraud looks like a Republican issue is that Republicans are in power. We'll have the same fight forever, be it Greens, the Reform Party, or the Natural Law Party in charge.
Don't elect, draft... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There are plenty of good republicans... (Score:5, Informative)
It's pretty obvious that Erlich is taking advantage of the situation to turn it into a partisan issue by making the Democrats in charge of elections look bad, and to make himself look like a saint. The irony is that he previously poo-poo'd problems with Diebold machines in the Ohio 2004 presidential elections, while it was politically favorable for him to do so.
The intro slashdot blurb is also entirely misleading, because there's not a contingent of the Democratic Party against using paper ballots, in fact the article only mentions the two prominent Democratic members of the elections committee that are resisting, primarily because it's their own jobs that are being criticized by Erlich.
So make no mistake, this is ENTIRELY POLITICAL, Erlich is taking advantage of a political opportunity presented by the fuckups of two prominent Democrats, and trying to paint himself as pro-fair-elections and them as obstructionist in one sweep. Politically a smart thing to do, also somewhat misleading. Amazing to see how many slashdotters take politicians words at their face values.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, it's quite shocking here to see so many people admiring Erlich when he's the typical sleezeball who's only taking advantage of a political opportunity to make himself look great and paint the opposition poorly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, they won't do it because it would make election fraud nearly impossible.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And it shows. Ehrlich was the major force behind converting MD voting to Diebold.