Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Flawed US Election Reform Bill

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the paper-trails-at-high-cost dept.

United States 188

H.R.811 sounds great: It's stated purpose is "to require a voter-verified permanent paper ballot." Unfortunately, it sounds like the details have some devils, as usual. From the Bev Harris article Is a flawed bill better than no bill?: "[T]he Holt Bill provides for a paper trail (toilet paper roll-style records affixed to DRE voting machines) in 2008, requires more durable ballots in 2010, and requires a complex set of audits. It also cements and further empowers a concentration of power over elections under the White House, gives explicit federal sanction to trade secrets in vote counting, mandates an expensive 'text conversion' device that does not yet exist which is not fully funded, and removes 'safe harbor' for states in a way that opens them up to unlimited, expensive, and destabilizing litigation." Update: 07/11 16:23 GMT by KD : Derek Slater writes "EFF's e-voting expert Matt Zimmerman recently published this article separating the myths about HR 811 from the facts, and countering many of the misleading and outright false claims being made about it."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

God Smack Your Ass !! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19836613)



God Smack Your Ass !!

Lies! (1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836617)

LIES! [whitehouse.gov]

But... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836621)

Other than that, it's ok.

Pwned by muscle memory (5, Funny)

tttonyyy (726776) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836643)

Type "Wii" to much and you start producing words like "Biill".

I knew I was a PHP ubergeek when I found myself typing "mysql" automatically whenever I meant to type "myself" in e-mails (and I did it typing this sentence and had to correct it, I kid you not!).

Re:Pwned by muscle memory (1)

tttonyyy (726776) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836877)

Type "Wii" to much
Just to pre-empt the pedants, yes, I did mean "too" and not "to".

I feel your pain kdawson. The force is strong between us.

Re:Pwned by muscle memory (2, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837413)

by tttonyyy (726776) Alter Relationship on Thursday July 12, @08:50AM (#19836643)
Sure, but that doesn't explain your muscle-memory producing "tttonyyy" for your nick.

Spelling: (-1, Offtopic)

cosmocain (1060326) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836713)

A flawed Slashdot Headline

scnr

My opinion (4, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836715)

My opinion is that the US election system has become too cumbersome/complicated for the average person. I'm Canadian, and I find voting very simple. Federal elections require me to check 1 box. That's it. There is about 7? boxes to choose from depending on which riding you are located in. Each box shows the name of the representative of a specific party. Provincial elections are the same, although there's usually less boxes. Municipal elections are actually the most complicated, in which I have to vote for Mayor, Councillor, and school board trustee. There's too many options on the US ballot, and having different ballots for every state or county when people are electing the president just makes things overly complicated. There would be no need for voting machines if people weren't voting on 75 different issues for every election. A simple pencil and paper ballot works a lot better.

Re:My opinion (5, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836743)

In other words, the US election system sucks because we don't just vote for a supreme overlord and be done with it?

Although, if there were a box on my ballot labeled, "I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords," I'd probably check it.

Diebold (4, Funny)

rustalot42684 (1055008) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836799)

So that's a vote registered to Diebold, right?

Re:My opinion (4, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836969)

n other words, the US election system sucks because we don't just vote for a supreme overlord and be done with it?


I don't know about you, but my last ballot said:

Supreme Overload (check only ONE):
[ ] The Dark One
[ ] One Ring to Rule Them All...
[ ] The Lord of Mordor
[ ] Sauron, The Dark Lord

And I was really confused. So I just filled one in at random.

It's perhaps worth nothing that I live in Florida.

Re:My opinion (2, Funny)

josquint (193951) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837551)

Supreme Overload (check only ONE):

Is that like getting slashdotted?

Re:My opinion (1)

ultrasound (472511) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838539)

You missed out the most popular option

Supreme Overload (check only ONE):
[ ] The Dark One
[ ] One Ring to Rule Them All...
[ ] The Lord of Mordor
[ ] Sauron, The Dark Lord
[x] CowboyNeal

Re:My opinion (4, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837049)

Actually, no, we only vote for the people who will represent us in our tiny little area. So we don't vote for the Prime Minister, or the provincial premier, (at least no most of us). We vote for somebody from our area who is (supposedly) looking out for the people in that small area. The leader of the party with the most people voted in become Prime Minister. In the US, people do vote for the supreme overload (the president) but the problem is that they also have to vote for millions of other little things. What's the point of electing people if you can't delegate to them some of the decision making.

Re:My opinion (1)

Gregb05 (754217) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837507)

Yeah, why should I vote 'no' on potentially devastating and exploitative laws
Surely I can always elect someone who will represent my opinions about every conceivable subject without error!

At best, politicians are ignorant about many subjects, and do the best they can representing the interests in their locality. Personally, with my representatives, I wouldn't trust them further than I could throw them.
Considering that even the most sober, realistic and intelligent politician can only make decisions on almost entirely distorted information presented to them, I'm glad that in America we get the chance to petition for a vote on controversial issues. Walking in and checking a box opens the door to too much exploitation even without electronic voting machines (Consider Italy).

States' rights and all that (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837955)

I'm glad that in America we get the chance to petition for a vote on controversial issues.
Depending, of course, on which state you live in. In some states, the only items that get on to the ballot are decided on by the very people you don't trust to make those decisions. I suspect that some states don't even have initiatives on the ballot at all. Really, I do think that's one of our strengths - 50+ experiments, running in parallel...

Re:My opinion (3, Interesting)

rustalot42684 (1055008) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836775)

Or do it the way it is in Toronto municipal elections: there is an arrow with a gap thru it like so:
= =>
next to each name. you use the advanced technology of the 'pencil' to complete the arrow of your desired candidate (for mayor and for councillor, they're separate categories), and then it goes into a scanner that detects which arrow you selected. Then it goes into a stack so there is a paper trail. This way you get the advantages of machine voting with the advantages of paper voting.

Re:My opinion (1, Funny)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836855)

They tried that in Florida in 2000, the Democrats found it too confusing.

Re:My opinion (1)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837255)

Many US jurisdictions do it this way. I live in Rhode Island, and we use the 'complete the arrow, scan ballot sheet' system; it works alright.

Re:My opinion (0)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837403)

See, this is exactly the problem I'm talking about. Even if one state, or a bunch of states actually find a good way of conducting votes, there's still a lot of states who get it really wrong. Having a national system for voting in which all ballots are the same and conducted in the manner is essential for elections to work properly. Not every town should have to conduct elections the same as the next town for electing mayor, but when you're holding the election for President, the ballots should all be the same.

Re:My opinion (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838379)

Maine also does ballots this way, except that you use a black marker instead of a pencil.

Re:My opinion (1)

TheGreek (2403) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838625)

Maine also does ballots this way, except that you use a black marker instead of a pencil.
Not in all precincts. I still check boxes.

Re:My opinion (1, Interesting)

izzo nizzo (731042) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837453)

No, a paper ballot is not okay because the stakes are so high that we have numerous groups trying to steal the election and make a game of the system. We need something secure if we want to elect someone rather than just handing over the reins to a cheat. And that means a voting system that doesn't REQUIRE us to TRUST countless officials who are given the privilege of counting our votes and reporting the totals.

VoteHere has created an amazing piece of software that uses a multi-step encryption to make the election both publicly auditable and securely secretive. They've done a shit job at marketing their system, but it's really our only chance to have any confidence in our process. We need to spread the word and convince them to spruce up their web presence. Yet they can repair our elections, and if we are allowed to vote then we can repair our nation. If not, we'll probably continue selling off everything we have that's worth anything and this country will become ever more miserable and weak. Trust no one.

Re:My opinion (4, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837717)

I cannot have confidence in a voting system unless I completely understand how it works. I am a software developer, and I don't trust any voting system which uses software specifically because most people, including myself, wouldn't be able to understand the system, or wouldn't take the time to understand the system, even if they could. With paper ballots that are counted by hand, I completely understand every aspect of the voting and counting system. People from all parties can actually watch the actual count and verify that they are counted correctly. Security measure can be put in place to ensure that there is no ballot stuffing, by checking the box before hand, and comparing the number of votes counted to the number of people who actually voted. I'm not saying paper is infallible, but that I trust it because I can look at it and understand it. Why should I believe the claims that your "VoteHere" system is any more reliable or trustworthy than a system made by Diebold? Like you said, "Trust no one". Why should I trust any organization if I can't verify the voting process by myself.

Also, the other problem with using machines is that they sometimes break, or there aren't enough of them to go around, and people end up waiting hours in line to vote. I've never had to wait more than 5 minutes to cast my ballot, and that's the way it should be. Making people wait so long to vote discourages them, and brings down the number of people who vote, and this invalidates the whole problem.

Re:My opinion (2, Insightful)

tist (1086039) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837901)

I spent some time doing IV&V (Independent Verification and Validation) for Ohio. We tested both Diebold and ES&S touch screen machines. The process was spelled out in detail to cast votes and then verify that both the paper tape and the accumulated digital version on PCMCIA card matched the votes that were input. We selected the votes to cast, so no one at the voting company could know what we were casting. With all that behind me and my experience with the business, the single weakest point of the system was the "toilet paper" roll. This was a constant point of failure with jams, tears, etc. To this day it makes no sense to me to cast an electronic (touch screen) ballot and then produce paper with this sophisticated and failure prone system when the systems already exist to mark a paper ballot, scan the ballot with mark sense technology that works very well and have a simple (low cost) system for voting that has a built in paper trail.
 
  JW

Re:My opinion (1)

myth24601 (893486) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838503)

My opinion is that the US election system has become too cumbersome/complicated for the average person. I'm Canadian, and I find voting very simple. Federal elections require me to check 1 box. That's it. There is about 7? boxes to choose from depending on which riding you are located in. Each box shows the name of the representative of a specific party. Provincial elections are the same, although there's usually less boxes.

Federal elections are easy, House Member, Maybe Senator, Maybe President. The State elections are what lards up a ballot at least in North Carolina. You have Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Agriculture Commissioner, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Secretary of Education, State Treasurer and State Auditor just for the executive branch. Legislature is easy since it's one Senator and One House member. Then you have Judicial elections which include many Supreme court justices then Appeals court justices then Superior court judges then finally District court judges.

Municipal elections are actually the most complicated, in which I have to vote for Mayor, Councillor, and school board trustee.

Now I don't know about other states but in NC the local elections are held on odd years so it's just things like Mayor, City Council, County Commission, School board, Soil Conservation Board, District Attorney, Sheriff. Of course since none of those are as high profile as the state and federal stuff they usually don't have very high turnout unless there is a major issue festering like happened in the Duke Lacrosse rape case in Durham, NC.

There's too many options on the US ballot, and having different ballots for every state or county when people are electing the president just makes things overly complicated.

I would agree to some extent. I would like to see NC get rid of electing many of our executive branch members with the exception of maybe Attorney General and State Auditor (to keep an eye on the Governor) and switch them to appointments by the Governor. The same could be done with Most of the State Judicial branch as well.

There would be no need for voting machines if people weren't voting on 75 different issues for every election. A simple pencil and paper ballot works a lot better.

Not really. In my part of NC we use paper and it works fine. If your a party person you can simply check the box for straight party ticket and skip to the "non-partition" section of the ballot which is were Judicial elections and Ballot initiatives are.

Basically, Federal elections are not complicated and many people just fill out those and maybe Governor and turn in their ballot.

Amazing (1, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836717)

The dems are fighting against this admin, accuse it of being corrupt (which it obviously is), is possibly about to lose the ability to monitor the WH (if they lose the up-coming battle in SCOTUS), and YET, they want to put voting admin under the WH.

In addition, they are removing from the states, saying that closed systems are fine, as well as dictating exactly how a complicated paper trail will be handled.

Offhand, I am guessing that this has MS written ALL over it.

Re:Amazing (2, Insightful)

rpillala (583965) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837103)

Democrat and Republican are useless categories. When an issue can be influenced by money, both of those parties are susceptible. Monied interests would like to push elections towards people they've already paid, but if it goes the other way they can handle that too. It's just more expensive.

Re:Amazing (4, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837737)

I can't agree. The Democrats aren't what they ought to be, of course, but can you honestly say that straight up Republican rule produced the same results as straight up Democratic rule, which we've had many times in the last fifty years?

The problem with the Republican party is that they are no longer conservatives. When I was kid, the Republican party was a place for people of a temperate, Burkean conservative temperament. This viewpoint was skeptical, and very wary of the dangers posed by misuse of government power, but in the end pragmatic. Now, I'm a Democrat, but that's the kind of Republican government I could live with.

The problem was this hadn't produced a big, generational victory for the Republicans like the Democrats had after the Great Depression.

So, certain elements in the party decided to gain power by inflaming populist fears and anger. To do this, they needed media power and that takes money. This mix of populism and secret privilege lead to electoral success for the party, but not political success. The Republican party shifted to a new ideological style that is nearly the opposite of what the old Republican party stood for. The rank and file Republicans I know aren't for a larger and more expensive government with unprecedented powers to intrude into the affairs of its citizens.

Some Democrats I know toyed with the Greens until the 2000 election fiasco. They didn't think the Democrats stood up for Democratic principles. Where is the party that stands up for traditional Republican values?

Re:Amazing (1)

nutrock69 (446385) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838195)

Where is the party that stands up for traditional Republican values?
Screw Republican. Screw Democrat. Screw all of the parties, in fact.

What I want to know is: Where can we find someone, almost anyone, that stands up for traditional citizen values above their own self-interest?

Re:Amazing (2, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838449)

And that leaves you at the mercy of the greater scoundrel.

Re:Amazing (2, Insightful)

Lemmeoutada Collecti (588075) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838841)

Right here, but I really don't want the job.

Re:Amazing (4, Insightful)

internic (453511) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837347)

Remember, the point of this bill is to add auditing requirements and voter verifiability. For whatever flaws it might have, those are laudible goals that are designed to fight corruption.

Offhand, I am guessing that this has MS written ALL over it.

Offhand, I'd say you're wrong. Originally, this bill required the voting machine software to be open source. I think that was weakened in a compromise to actually get the thing passed, but it still requires some outside review of the source, as I understand it. AFAIK, MS has been against this bill from the start because it required such openness.

Re:Amazing (4, Interesting)

GreyPoopon (411036) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837911)

The dems are fighting against this admin, accuse it of being corrupt (which it obviously is), is possibly about to lose the ability to monitor the WH (if they lose the up-coming battle in SCOTUS), and YET, they want to put voting admin under the WH.

The truth of the matter is that as long as we use an electoral system for the presidential election, the STATES should be in control of each of their voting standards and not the federal government. And as long as each state will have a certain number of elected representatives, each state should have its own control over how that process works, too. If a certain state wants to use flawed voting machines to determine the outcome of the election, so be it. If a state wants to let its governor appoint senators, representatives and choose who will receive the electoral votes, so be it. That is the way the system is supposed to work in this country, and I personally want the feds to stay out of it. At best, the federal government should be allowed to publish information about perceived problems in the voting systems of certain states so that the residents of that states have an opportunity to change. If desired change doesn't happen, the residents can move to another state, and the number of representatives and electoral votes can be adjusted accordingly during the next census. If any combination of the three branches of our federal government are going to be allowed to control election standards and methods for the individual states, we might as well take all control away from the states and make the next step towards dictatorship.

Re:Amazing (2, Insightful)

trianglman (1024223) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838533)

The dems are fighting against this admin, accuse it of being corrupt (which it obviously is), is possibly about to lose the ability to monitor the WH (if they lose the up-coming battle in SCOTUS), and YET, they want to put voting admin under the WH.

You do realize that, according to the Constitution, the executive branch is the arm of the government that enforces the laws that the legislative enacts, right? This isn't a matter of trusting the White House to follow through. This is the way our government works.

As far as open or closed systems, this bill doesn't deal directly with what sort of software these systems need to run. The main focus of the bill is a paper trail being required for these systems, something that IMO is long overdue, and making sure the voting systems allow people with disabilities to vote. This has nothing to do with Microsoft, Linux, Open or Closed systems. Just because it doesn't deal with all of your hopes and wishes doesn't mean this is a bad bill. An all in one bill is less likely to succeed as too many people will have things to gain and lose from supporting the bill, leading to a poor, watered down bill. I would rather have a (slightly) more focused bill like this one be passed, dealing with a few, focused issues of voter confidence and accessibility, rather than them taking 5+ years making an overarching bill.

As for the article about the bill, it is a bunch of FUD, and I don't see how the author could have actually read much of the bill to have come to the conclusions that she did. The main quote I take issue with is "gives explicit federal sanction to trade secrets in vote counting." All source code, compiled code, and sample machines must be given to the NIST to be fully tested to make sure nothing can be done to the votes. It sets a required minimum number of ballots that need to be manually audited, using the paper trail, during the actual voting. There are no "trade secrets" anywhere in this counting and auditing process. As for the other complaints, the NIST has already been thoroughly involved in the auditing process of all voting machines for a long time. The "text conversion device" is required for accessibility, and already exists in other software applications. It is necessary if those with disabilities are to be involved in the voting process in a real way. As far as removing "safe harbor" for states that don't comply, I don't see why states should be immune from liability when it comes to protecting my vote.

Re:Amazing (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838857)

The dems are fighting against this admin, accuse it of being corrupt (which it obviously is), is possibly about to lose the ability to monitor the WH (if they lose the up-coming battle in SCOTUS), and YET, they want to put voting admin under the WH.

The Dems don't expect this bill to be effective till there is a Democrat President in the White House. That way the Dems can ensure that there will never be another Republican President.

Of course, the Republicans would like the bill to be law with a Republican President, so they can ensure there will never be another Democrat President.

It shouldn't be that hard.... (2, Insightful)

rustalot42684 (1055008) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836725)

How about a machine running Tivo-style Linux (so you can't mess with the software) that lets the user pick one out of several choices, then prints a receipt and says "Does the receipt match the screen?". It's /not/ /that/ /hard/.

Re:It shouldn't be that hard.... (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837185)

How about a machine running Tivo-style Linux (so you can't mess with the software) that lets the user pick one out of several choices, then prints a receipt and says "Does the receipt match the screen?". It's /not/ /that/ /hard/.

even then, there's no guarantee that the vote actually got registered correctly... if they fudge the vote just enough to avoid flagging it up, then they can easily steal the entire election with just a few votes here, a few votes there in the constituencies that matter... they're not going to attempt to steal "safe" constituencies, just ones where the incumbent only has a very narrow majority... the machines that do the tabulation matter, not the actual machines in the voting booths... As Stalin famously said, it who gets to count the votes that has the power...

Re:It shouldn't be that hard.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19837233)

The hard part is the "so you can't mess with the software" part. The vote counting process is opaque; the software is kept secret from the public, the software audits are of questionable benefit, and recount methods are erratic at best (and at worst may have been improperly altered to prop up confidence in machine tallies.)

The right way to do this is to have voters mark paper ballots and have people count the ballots (multiple people/ballot to verify counts) with spectators present. Allow machine-aided voting for voters with disabilities, using the machines that make physical marks on paper ballots.

Computers can collect and count votes more efficiently than people, it's true, but they put too much control over the process in the hands of too few.

Re:It shouldn't be that hard.... (1)

rustalot42684 (1055008) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837317)

The hard part is the "so you can't mess with the software" part. The vote counting process is opaque; the software is kept secret from the public, the software audits are of questionable benefit

Did you actually bother to READ my post? The point is that it's opensource software which uses hardware DRM to prevent modification. The process is not opaque at all. Post the source on the internet a couple months before you finalize for the DRM, so people can look at it and submit patches to fix things that are bad.

Re:It shouldn't be that hard.... (1)

ArikTheRed (865776) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837573)

I've always wanted to have a ticket printed out that contains your votes, a code, and a phone number. So later in the day (or immediately?) you can call the number and verify - from the central vote repository - that your vote is correct. afaik votes are a matter of public record - so I've never understood the problem w/ just having a public database of voting records. When my dad ran for county council he just went to the court house and got a huge list of everyone who voted in the district the last election - every should be able to do it.

Re:It shouldn't be that hard.... (2, Insightful)

DoohickeyJones (605261) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838855)

No, no, and no.

There is a VERY good reason you don't walk away with proof of anything more than THAT you voted.

If you had a way of proving how you (you, specifically, not you as in 'your voting area') voted, it would be far too easy to arrange the buying and selling of votes, voter intimidation, etc.

As a far fetched example (far fetched today. Not so far fetched all that long ago):

You walk out of the voting station and a guy with a Big Heavy Stick (or a cell phone to call another guy with a Big Heavy Stick who is standing over your wife and kids) takes your reciept from you and verifies you voted 'correctly'. Didn't vote for the 'right' candidate? Say goodbye to one of your kids.

Or hey...let's say that your party lost. The party that won wants to "crack down on Terrorists here at home!"
First thing they need to do, of course, is find out who might be holding a grudge from the last election. Here is this list of who voted, and how they voted. Okay, it only assigns the vote to a phone number, but we can pull phone records to see who called each of these numbers...

Are you SURE you want concrete proof of how you specifically voted?

Me, I want concrete proof of how everyone voted as a whole (paper ballots, etc), but I do NOT want any way to tie the vote back to an individual. The closest you should be able to tie the vote back is to the specific voting location and maybe the specific voting station.

Is this a surprise to anyone? (5, Interesting)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836735)

On top of the usual politicking and industry appeasement, there is the fact that there is only one engineer in congress now, and he's a civil.

If as our fearless leaders say "the future of America is the knowledge worker and innovator" then we must start electing a few (or more) people with technical backgrounds.

For this to happen, some of us introverted technical folks are going to have to swallow that and run for office.

Re:Is this a surprise to anyone? (4, Informative)

internic (453511) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837277)

Rush Holt, the author of H.R. 811, has a Ph.D. in Physics. Also note that a bill does not always represent what the law maker thinks is best, but rather it's the best thing they think can actually pass.

Re:Is this a surprise to anyone? (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837879)

Also note that a bill does not always represent what the law maker thinks is best, but rather it's the best thing they think can actually pass.
Yeah, but we shouldn't be passing a bill just to pass one. This bill will actually make things worse by explicitly or implicitly allowing many of the problems to remain, while simultaneously removing the ability of the states to make the systems better on their own, and increasing costs all around just for good measure. If they can't do it right, then they should stay the hell away from the issue and at least let the states have a shot at it on their own.

HR811 is a Step Forward (3, Insightful)

internic (453511) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838015)

Yeah, but we shouldn't be passing a bill just to pass one. This bill will actually make things worse by explicitly or implicitly allowing many of the problems to remain, while simultaneously removing the ability of the states to make the systems better on their own, and increasing costs all around just for good measure. If they can't do it right, then they should stay the hell away from the issue and at least let the states have a shot at it on their own.

By adding a voter-verifiable paper trail, it addresses by far the most serious problem with DRE voting machines. Using the rationale that we shouldn't pass it because it leaves some problems unsolved is making the perfect the enemy of the good. This is the way many activist communities shoot themselves in the foot. As for limiting the states, as I understand it this doesn't. From the EFF [eff.org] :

The higher standards required by HR 811 would provide the beginning, not the end, of serious election reform. States wishing to, say, ban all electronic voting machines, impose stricter audit requirements, or force vendors to publicly disclose all of their source code will remain free to do so, as they are today. If HR 811 becomes law, however, states would not be permitted to lag behind in many important areas as so many do today.

Re:HR811 is a Step Forward (2, Informative)

Danse (1026) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838645)

As for limiting the states, as I understand it this doesn't.
I just read the EFF link and read through some of the actual bill, and while I think it should do more (like requiring that the source code be publicly available), I do think that it will be a major improvement to the current situation, and hopefully a good starting point for further reform of our election system. I think the BBV article is at least somewhat misleading in its claims, at least if the EFF is correct in theirs (which I'm more inclined to believe). Even if some of what the BBV article says is true, this is still an overall improvement. I guess I just remain very wary of the motives of the people supporting these bills, and I tend to look for ulterior motives. Sad, but understandable given the state of politics these days.

Re:HR811 is a Step Forward (2, Informative)

internic (453511) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838989)

Like you, I'm not legal expert. Additionally, I personally haven't had the time to devote to studying this issue as much as I'd like. But I tend to trust the interpretation of the bill by the EFF, and I take into consideration the support of the bill by other people to whom I give credence, like Ed Felten. I'm not saying that BBV may not make some valid points, but right now it seems to me that, on balance, it would be better for the bill to pass.

As for ulterior motives, I agree that there are plenty in congress. As far as I'm aware, though, Rush Holt is one of the good guys, someone who is interested in crafting legislation based upon reason and evidence whether or not it's popular. Unfortunately, I think that the more one seeks political power the more one must give up those qualities.

As an aside: I'm pleasantly surprised (ok, shocked) to see someone in the Slashdot discussion change their stance based upon evidence presented. That alone is enough to make me a fan. :-)

Re:Is this a surprise to anyone? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838895)

Rush Holt, the author of H.R. 811, has a Ph.D. in Physics.

Which means exactly zero when it comes to election reform.

Also note that a bill does not always represent what the law maker thinks is best, but rather it's the best thing they think can actually pass.

I am aware that getting SOMETHING done is often seen as necessary. However, I have a prejudice in favour of getting something done RIGHT. If more of our lawmakers worked on the assumption that a bad bill is worse than no bill, we'd all be better off.

All the wrong things... (3, Insightful)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836737)

The bill looks like it creates far more problems than it repairs...and doesn't repair the problems it is supposed to in the first place.

I'm a right-winger who doesn't think there is much to the election fraud arguments, and even I think that there needs to be a paper trail for voting. We don't need new laws to fix the problem, new bureaucracies...if there is ONE thing that needs to be transparent in government, it is the election process. BOTH sides of the aisle look bad on election matters right now, and no real practical solution has arisen out of Washington yet.

Re:All the wrong things... (4, Funny)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836805)

BOTH sides of the aisle look bad on election matters right now, and no real practical solution has arisen out of Washington yet.
Well, jeez, what is their incentive to fix things? Apparently election fraud is how they get into office!

Reply:All the wrong things, Vegas Potential .... (1)

OldHawk777 (19923) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837461)

Would it be legal to bet on which politician annually is identified as the worse politician in the United States?
Would it be legal to bet on which politician will wipe their ass with The USA Constitution and Citizens next?

If Vegas could come up with odds and fair-games that could tally
nationally and internationally the worse/best "in office"
politician ... I would damn sure start voting again with a few
bets in Vegas.

I mean, I think, we can't legally sell our vote or bet on elections; However, our votes (most of the time) count on the basis of the amount of money expended by the elected official; so, why not have betting pools that pays out every year on criminal a/o poor-performance politicians. On December 31 we could place our votes/IP and/or credit card name/address, then be given an option to make our bet on any elected federal politician. The vote counts, but the payout is proportional to the winners who pick the biggest looser politician in Washington DC (on pool national another international) all US Citizens could vote twice. Then on Jan 01, the losers would be announced to the public.

Well anyway, it would be as democratic as anything else today in the USA [got money, place a bet!].

Would it be (who cares about fair) legal?

Re:All the wrong things... (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837631)

Yeah, it's funny how the "Vote Those Bastards Out Of Office" act somehow fails to pass every time it comes up.

Re:All the wrong things... (1)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836891)

>>if there is ONE thing that needs to be transparent in government, it is the election process. Actually, if as much as possible regarding the critical issues of the day aren't publicly available, then having an open election process does not matter. How does one differentiate the candidates in an information vacuum?

damn html formatting default (2, Insightful)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836909)

>>if there is ONE thing that needs to be transparent in government, it is the election process.

Actually, if as much as possible regarding the critical issues of the day aren't publicly available, then having an open election process does not matter. How does one differentiate the candidates in an information vacuum?

--"It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from there."

Re:All the wrong things... (1)

internic (453511) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837373)

Currently, if you use a DRE your vote goes into what is essentially a black box and you have no idea whether it actually recorded the vote the way you cast it. Moreover, no one can meaningfully audit it after the fact. I find it hard to fathom how this bill can create problems worse than that.

Re:All the wrong things... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19838119)

Why do you think the Democrats look bad now?

Tolerance Stackup (2, Insightful)

starglider29a (719559) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838231)

While in principal I agree that every vote counts, and every vote is sacred... [deep breath] An election is a system. It is a machine. It has to have SOME fault-tolerance.

But when one vote can swing one state can swing one electoral bloc can swing one election can swing one world climate/political landscape/economy... THAT is a BSOD waiting to happen. With the ability to count 99.994% of the votes instantly, the need for the Electoral College is obviated. Instead of using a fault-ridden system (Imagine if the voting system was as buggy as WinME :-)) to administer a fault-critical system... Let's fix the fault-critical system.

LOSE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!

Then, if one precinct gets utterly lost or corrupted, then it dings the POPULAR vote tallies. The same person wins the election AND gets inaugurated. The only people who REALLY are affected by a tolerable tolerance of fault will be the Bookies in Vegas who handle the point spreads.

The Electoral College was a necessity in it's day when bandwidth was REALLY REALLY low. We may need it again, when votes within the United States of the Virgo Cluster are counted... but till then, abolish the Electoral College, even though it takes a Constitutional Amendment. We need to do this while we still have a Constitution to amend.

IIt's not Biill (-1, Troll)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836811)

Heading is now "A Flawed US Election Reform Biill".

Probably in a few hours this stupid typo will be fixed, and my post will be modded troll. But just for the record.... Why the fuck can't the editors spellcheck?

And also, I predict they won't fix or notice the mistake in the first line: "It's stated purpose is..."

"It's" == "It is". Possessive is "Its".

I'll gladly repay you Tuesday... (2, Insightful)

Foolicious (895952) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836843)

...for a better "nutshell" summary than the one in TFA. I read the whole thing, the actual whole thing, including all the comments with the bad avatar-like photos, and I'm still confused about why this Holt Bill is so bad. I'm not saying it's good. I'm just saying I don't know. Most of all, I don't particularly trust the summary of someone who then goes on to argue against a bill, mainly by just repeating the same comments over and over again with no deeper explanation.

Re:I'll gladly repay you Tuesday... (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836951)

Exactly what I'm wondering. I RTFA hoping to understand what the summary was going on about, and came away still confused. (Did anyone see anything in the summary about minorities being discriminated against?)

Can anyone explain what the big deal is? I'm not saying that it isn't a big deal. Just that I can't understand a word of it past "toilet paper".

Re:I'll gladly repay you Tuesday... (1)

conureman (748753) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837053)

Maybe the "nutshell" summary is geared towards people who have already been following the story at blackboxvoting.org. Is Frederick Douglass incorrect? I'm sorry, I just can't help you there. Of course, as a citizen of the People's Republic of California, I've been watching Feinstein's moves for a while, and her name on a bill is just prima fascia evidence of evil and corruption to me. Prejudice? Hell yeah. Please disabuse me of my notions if you have ANY contrary evidence.

The only solution (2, Insightful)

Jaaay (1124197) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836857)

is the dead tree solution without any computers in site. Anything else is bad for everyone except Diebold.

Re:The only solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19838323)

is the dead tree solution without any computers in site.

WTF do you mean? Your sentence doesn't parse. Do you mean "without any computers on site" or "without any computers in sight"? Was that a grammar error or a spelling error? Either way, the way it's written it conveys no meaning whatever; it's gibberish.

In Illinois our new voting machines are amazingly (considering Illinois' history of corruption) done right. You make choices with a stylus on a touch screen, it has you double check your choices, then prints out a paper ballot that the election judge puts in the ballot box. If a recount is needed, or someone calls shenanigans, they can count the paper.

But this "election reform" bill is just a smokescreen, as it doesn't matter which Republicrat gets into office. Sony, BP, Shell, Universal, and all those other fine upstanding American corporations can bribe both candidates from both wings of the Corporate Republicrat Party with its "campaign contributions", and doesn't give a rat's ass who wins, because no matter which candidate wins, they win and you lose.

Election reform I'd like to see would entail three things:
  1. It is a felony with prison time to contribute to more than one candidate in any given race, as "contributing" to multiple candidates is a poorly disguised bribe.
  2. It would be a felony to contribute to any candidate you're not eligible to vote for. Bill Gates should not be able to contribute to Dick Durbin or Dennis Hastert unless he moves to Illinois. He can contribute to whatever candidate is representing the state he lives in. And neither the company I work for or the union I belong to should be able to contribute to any candidate, since corporations and unions can't vote.
  3. All elections should have a paper trail.
Until they institute the first two of these reforms (which will be shortly after hell freezes over) I'll continue splitting my vote between the Greens and Libertarians, and urge everyone else, especially those who normally stay home on election day, to vote "none of the above" by voting Loser Party. Don't waste your vote on candidates who have no intention of representing you!

-mcgrew

Power corrupts (1)

MECC (8478) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836873)

The more power the white house gets, the more corrupt it will become - regardless of which party is there.

Voting rights (4, Funny)

conureman (748753) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836875)

I guess if they're going to quit pretending to count my vote, maybe I can quit pretending it matters, and I can stay home and wait for the results on teevee like every one else. What a time-saver!

The question is... (3, Funny)

vsavkin (136167) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836879)

> a voter-verified permanent paper ballot

yeah, but will it blend?

Re:The question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19837387)

The Constitution did.

Is a flawed bill better than no bill? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19836901)

I reckon we should ask Hillary.

Toilet paper? (2, Funny)

AlHunt (982887) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836903)

>[T]he Holt Bill provides for a paper trail (toilet paper roll-style records

How fitting. I think all federal documents should be thus produced.

Re:Toilet paper? (1)

MajinBlayze (942250) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837619)

[T]he Holt Bill provides for a paper trail (toilet paper roll-style records

How fitting. I think all federal documents should be thus produced.
As if they aren't already?

Trade secrets? (1)

Wiseazz (267052) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836917)

"trade secrets in vote counting"

Hell, fellas - it's not that complicated.

Re:Trade secrets? (1)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836957)

Aknot: You asked for a case. We brought you a case. Zorg: A case with four stones in it. Not one! Not two or three! But four!!! Four stones!!! What the fuck am I supposed to do with an EMPTY case?!! Aknot: ...We are warriors, not merchants! Zorg: But you can still count. Look... my fingers... Four stones, four crates... Zero stones... Zero Crates!!!

Re:Trade secrets? (1)

db32 (862117) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836985)

1+1=3 for sufficiently large values of 1. The trade secret part is simple...if there is any "trade secret" involved in candidate.vote+=1 then it means at some point they are doing something like candidate.vote=candidate.payoff_index*candidate.vo te. They don't want the candidates to know how much money it takes to affect their candidate.payoff_index value or the candidates will only pay the minimum bribes to get the desired multiplier. If its a black box system the candidates will have to bribe more worried that the other candidate may or may not have bribed as well and since all the bribes are secret it ecourages higher bribes to get the same candidate.payoff_index vote multiplier.

The vote lays with the people and state (1)

sjs132 (631745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836973)

Not the federal Gov... WHY is there ANY bills from the federal government side about elections even being considered?

"also cements and further empowers a concentration of power over elections under the White House"

DAH! Power breeds Power!

I'm not for either Dems or Replublicans, I'm for the United STATES of America... STATES is where the power comes from people! The Federal government can only do what the States let them... WE Are the BASE of those states... Call your Rep(s) and tell them what you think... At the State level they should decide what type of voting to do... old or electronic, etc... The Federal side should just be timeframe to get the counts into the auditors and then to the House. Anything else in tampering with the STATES election results.

Personally, I liked the old way... We had a paper and a punch. Easy to track... It wasn't until "chads" came into question etc.. in the old days it would be a dead vote. plain and simple.

THE IDIOTS! It's not rocket science, but obviously we've dumbed down our citizens too much. and BOTH sides try to take advantage of it.

Just my .02$...

Re:The vote lays with the people and state (1)

lessermilton (863868) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837469)

Personally, I liked the old way... We had a paper and a punch.
You're one of those old fashioned punch card programmers, aren't you? ;)

Of course, that being said - our educational system is geared around that kind of voting anyway... mmmm, say, that's a thought! Maybe that's why hardly anyone wants to vote - it's too reminiscent of the SATs we all had to take during school. We all felt our time could be better spent doing something else (which it could have) and what we chose really didn't affect what we were taught it school. Perhaps that's what's going on with the American voting system?

What good is a paper trail (1)

moracity (925736) | more than 7 years ago | (#19836981)

if we don't even verify that only qualified citizens are voting. It's absurd that photo identification is not required to vote.

Re:What good is a paper trail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19838937)

You mean like white landowners?

is it okay to publish buggy software? (1)

Glennethh (1122001) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837021)

is it okay to publish buggy software? Yes Will you get yelled at by the community for exploits? Yes Are you really going to care what people think? No, because their going to accept it anyway and ill make lots of money $_$

Voting possibilities (1)

Geek of Tech (678002) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837101)

I was sleeping last night and this came to me in a vision. How about we have all of the major television networks choose a candidate. They will all appear on TV during the same block of time. Then we just check with Nielsen. The candidate with the highest rating wins...

Talk about blowing smoke... (1)

WindowlessView (703773) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837163)

gives explicit federal sanction to trade secrets in vote counting

WTF? What's wrong with the open-sourced way we have been counting since humans first figured out they have 10 fingers?

Seriously, what are we really talking about here that is so damn revolutionary that the system requires trade secrecy? Touch screens and scanners? Printer drivers? Encryption? Some minor networking?

It's the government. Companies build things to spec all the time. If Diebold and the rest think this kind of stuff is so proprietary then don't bid. I am sure there are hundreds of small outfits that can do this work and would love to write to a spec, release the code, collect the bounty and live prosperously ever after.

Do we really need a computer to vote. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19837195)

Am I the only one that thinks that needing a computer to vote is absolutely ridiculous?! What a waste of money!

The best solution IMHO is to simply use optically scan-able bubble sheets. They are accurate, quick to count and straightforward to use.

You can also offer a computer to assist those with physical limitations that can fill out the bubble sheet for them.

This would involve investing in much fewer computers.

Unwashed masses voting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19837305)

http://blackboxvoting.org/ [blackboxvoting.org] has the best solution. The machine that fills out the ballot, does not do the counting of the ballots. The ballots are paper ballots with names of candidates and filled circles next to names so they can be read and counted by computers OR humans. The ballots can be filled out by hand, if needed, or by a fancy eletreonick votin' macheenee. After the machine spits it out, the voter can inspect it and verify it before walking across the room and depositing it into the ballot box.

But there is a bigger problem. First, there is no constitutional right to vote in federal elections. Second, we have too may DUMBASSES voting.... voting to line their own pockets, or voting how they are told to vote. It should be HARDER to vote. There should be a citizenship test in order to register to vote.

I like Robert Heinlein's vision -- you want to vote, then you have to serve your country FIRST.

I think it is hilarious... people screamed for eletreonick votin' macheenes. Then they got them, and THEN they discovered that of all the methods of voting, the most reliable (still not perfect) is the old paper ballot.

mark paper ballot, scan with reader, push OK (2, Insightful)

rcg40 (832633) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837411)

If we marked a paper ballot and then inserted it into a scanner, the scanner would show "This is your vote. Press Yes if you agree."

If Yes then the ballot is moved into a box and the tally is tallied.

At the closing of the voting day, several precincts are selected at random and their paper ballots are counted by hand. If the hand count agrees with the machine count, then the other precincts are counted via their machine counts and the vote count is published.

NB, no ballot counts are published until the hand count is verified.

This preserves the sanctity of the voter's vote. It has nothing to do with making "Bozo and Bozette at 6 and 10" happy.

Why record it right after the vote is cast? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19837529)

Is it to find out the results a half hour earlier? Is that really necessary (and worth the investment of a computer at every voting booth)?

Just have people fill out the bubble sheet. Have the voter put the bubble sheets in a locked box. Open the box when voting is over and have the scanner count the votes. That way, there isn't a computer needed at every voting booth.

Why do we need all these extra computers???? What a waste of money!!!

Re:Why record it right after the vote is cast? (1)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838107)

The advantage of having the voter put their ballot in the scanner (in the last election, my county had only one per precinct, not one per voting booth) is that the they know that their ballot that has been scanned and counted (on Sequoia scanner, a visible counter increments and a beep sounds when a ballot has been scanned correctly) hasn't been modified by anybody. If the election workers do it, the voters can never be completely certain that their vote hasn't been altered before it was counted and, as most people don't keep the tear-off receipts that they get from the ballot, there would be no way for a voter to verify it.

Why the complexity? (1)

imarsman (305818) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837525)

Not trying to piss anyone off, but why in the world are things being made so complicated? The basic requirements of a voting machine should not be able to fit on a single sheet of paper. Instead, once business interests and beaurocratic verbal expansion take hold things get really complicated and messy. In Canada, and I'm sure elsewhere, people walk up to a school or other public building, say hi to someone at one of three or four tables, show some ID, get a pencil and paper ballot, vote behind a cardboard screen, then submit the ballot. I know that in the US people vote for more things in federal elections, but more things are also voted for in Canadian municipal elections, and paper and pencil work just fine for that too. Increased complexity brings with it the chance for useless spending of money and failures in the system.

Let's Drop the Straw Man (3, Informative)

internic (453511) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837547)

Some of the objections given at the beginning of the article seem to be worth considering. The straw man debate that follows is just idiotic, however. It might be useful to look at what some actual supporters have to say, supporters like the EFF [eff.org] , Prof. Ed Felten [freedom-to-tinker.com] , Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] , the Brennan Center for Justice [federalele...reform.com] , People of the American Way, TrueVoteMD [truevotemd.org] , and Prof. Avi Rubin [blogspot.com] to name a few.

Re:Let's Drop the Straw Man (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838693)

You can also send support email [eff.org] to your congressperson from the EFF site if you decide that this bill is worthy of support.

Let the bush bash begin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19837645)

I haven't yet read my morning IQ dropping discussion thread on how evil, oppressive, etc, the current administration is. Please help me out I need to dumb down in order to make it through my next couple of meetings.

Bad title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19837767)

Here's an idea I'd like to throw out there:

Make the title of the article "A US Election Reform Bill", describe the bill in the summary, and the LET THE READER decide if it's flawed or not.

It's crazy I know, but they used to do stuff like that. I think they called it journalism.

too little, too late (1)

vyol8or (1127185) | more than 7 years ago | (#19837865)

The damage is already done. We've already had almost 8 years of the anti-Christ in office thanks to the flawed election system. This is like fixing the barn door after the animals have all escaped, and been run over by speeding 18 wheelers, or eaten by wolves, or killed by neighbors wielding elephant guns, or... you get the picture.

Does Anyone Else (1)

asphaltjesus (978804) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838007)

wonder if there's a block of voters out there thinking that using computers to vote is a good idea? Seriously. I'm asking because I don't know.

Regardless of /. opinion on the matter I'm led to believe that a small group of people somewhere is ramming electronic voting through local/state/federal government. If there was ever an example of how corrupt the workings of American Government are, I'd say this is it.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

But litigation is the new form of elections? (1)

kinglink (195330) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838215)

Don't like the election results, sue to change them.

The core of the controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19838297)

You might be wondering why Bev Harris and others think this bill is awful, after there was so much net-roots support for the Holt bill early on. I did. It turns out the areas of disagreement are:

1) Some of the critics of the Holt bill believe that computers should not be involved in the electoral process at all. This is not a wholly unreasonable opinion, given the electronic voting machines we've seen used in past elections. However, paper systems aren't perfect either, albeit having different failure modes. Thus there would seem to be an opportunity here to improve the system even over paper alone by using both computers and paper and have them check each other.

2) There are some potentially useful reforms that are omitted from the present bill. Critics would argue that they are essential. Supporters would argue that they are not essential and would make the bill much harder to pass. That's not to say they're unimportant, but as others have so aptly put it: is an imperfect bill better than no bill? That's a hard question. The good is often enemy of the best, and sometimes good is good enough, and sometimes not.

3) There are disagreements about some of the logistics of implementation, some of which the critics view as paramount. In particular, there's controversy over whether this gives the Election Assistance Commision too much power, whether the federal government has the authority to impose these rules on the states, etc. Supporters would view these more as simply details, that this isn't about whether the EAC or federal government ought to be involved, but rather to what precise extent they should be involved. I'm not familiar enough with all the issues to be able to discern where the optimal balance is here.

BEV HARRIS @ SLASHDOT!!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19838311)

The liberal tinfoil here just keeps getting better. Kooksville man. Next thing the slashtards will be saying is that 9/11 conspiracy theories are "news for nerds, stuff that matters". This site is DEAD!

How bloody hard can it be (1)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838317)

Well this is how it is done over in Sweden at least...

You get an envelope. You stick a bit of paper in it which holds the relevant information. It is counted, by hand, within 24 hours.
Now ok, the US has a larger population, but that also means you have a larger number of people to do the counting.

I really don't see why you need an advanced computer system to do this once every couple of years. Keep it simple, keep it open, and keep it manual. It works.

YOU FAIL INT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19838575)

weel-known (I always bRing my

Incumbent Parties (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838671)

As long as the incumbent parties are involved, the process will remain suspect. Ballot stuffing occurs on BOTH sides of the isle, as well as trying to restrict (enable) who can vote. Both (D) and (R) do it. And if it wasn't (D) or (R) it would be someone else afraid of losing power.

The point being, all the laws in the world are not going to prevent vote tampering. The process will NEVER be perfect, the best we can do is LIMIT the fraud so that the elections aren't thrown because of fraud. In the case of EXTREMELY close elections, decided by a few vote, there will always be accusations of impropriety. I suggest that they have RUN off elections if votes are that close.

Chances of fraud being perpetrated twice without detection is extremely low.

So the news is... (1)

Rai (524476) | more than 7 years ago | (#19838957)

Politicians continue to destroy the country, the world, and life in general. Doing their job as usual I see.

Tell me again why anyone even votes at all.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?