Asymmetrical Information

Why is this being bankrolled by a guy who lives in CA and is president of a Brazilian university? What interest does he have in CO, except maybe to swing the election to Kerry?

Maybe somebody from CO could bankroll the same idea for CA? Turnabout is fair play...

Sigh.

The Electoral College essentially "compartmentalizes" the vote, so that a problem with one state (e.g., Florida) remains localized and does not necessitate a nationwide recount. It forces candidates to pay at least some attention to smaller states. In a straight popular vote – which is what this organization is moving toward – candidates would camp in most populous states (New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Illinois, and California), and forget the rest of the country.

The present winner-take-all format of the Electoral College sharpens the outcome; conversely, proportional representation in the Electoral College would just mean a Florida-style dead heat could now occur there instead of just at the state level. In the case of tie, the Presidential election could then turn on one elector's vote. The shambles (and the opportunity for corruption) would be staggering.

Last, I don't understand why Democrats can't get past the 2000 election, and instead keep bleating about the Electoral College and Diebold electronic voting machines (and I voted for Gore, God help me). The present rules don't obviously favor either party over the other; in particular, Democrats seem not to realize that the same rules (or Diebold machines, for that matter) could perfectly well make the next election turn out in their favor. Conversely, changing the rules could result in their losing twice.

Why don't Democrats see this?

Yeah, I can't see why the Democrats would want to open this can of worms, given that Bush is currently running within 10 points of Kerry in California, and doing something like this for California, unless it was replicated in a whole bunch of other states, would eliminate the Kerry campaign's chance of winning.

Good point, Crank.

They seem to think that there was some mystical quality of the rules that caused them to lose, and that if they just fix that, all will be well. So far I don't see any proposed changes that would necessarily favor them.

Maybe if they ran stronger candidates...?

These days, John Kerry is beginning every sentence with the words, "I'm running for President because..."

That's gonna get real old, real fast, Senator. Good grief.

Occam's Beard: On the other hand, if Florida's electoral votes had been split proportionally, the whole argument would have been over just one electoral vote, and it would not have mattered. Unfortunately, Gore would have won by 278 to 259, sans recount, and he would probably still be waiting for UN permission to speak sternly to the Taliban, but Palm Beach's mess would have been only a local scandal. If all the states had done this, several of them may have had the last vote in dispute, but it's pretty unlikely that there would have been any appreciable chance of recounts swinging enough of them to change the winner. OTOH, maybe there wouldn't have been an electoral college majority - this puts the decision into Congress under some rather peculiar voting rules, and I think if people figured Gore would lose there anyway, there would have been a lot more votes for Harry Browne, Buchanan, etc.

The only state losing population recently is North Dakota. I think even West Virginia is growing these days.

The northern 2/3 of Maine are depopulating but they're still building new houses in the far south.

Nebraska has the same dynamic if you switch north/south to west/east.

Ahh,
This is dangerous on multiple levels. Remember that under the current Constitution someone needs 270 electoral votes or the whole thing goes to the House of Reps. If Colorado (and other states) begins to pass a scheme where the electoral votes goe porportionally to how the voting went what would happen? No one in the since at least 1992 would win Presidency becuase they would not have an absolute majority (50%+). In each of those elections, third party candidates managed to ensure that the winner did not recieve the absolute majority of the votes because of Perot and Nader. If the Presidency went to the House...in 1996 Dole, 2000 Bush.

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I believe this proposal is actually quite different from how they do it in Maine (and probably Nebraska). As I recall, Maine awards 1 electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and the other 2 to whoever wins the state. Since they only have 2 congressional districts, even the closest election will give the winner of the state at least 3 out of 4 electors, and most elections will give all 4 to the same candidate, just like the 48 states that do it the old-fashioned way.

There would also be far fewer opportunities for nail-biting (or dishonest) recounts in Maine. Even if one candidate wins the state by less than 1,000 votes, chances are that he would not be equally close in both districts. Most likely a close state result would mean a near-canceling-out of the vote in the two districts, with the winner of the state winning one district by (e.g.) 37,000 votes while losing the other by 36,500. It would take a careful recount to see who gets the two 'state-wide' electors, but that's just what happens in any state when the election is very close (e.g. Florida and New Mexico last time around).

The proposed Colorado method, with proportional 'representation' for the whole state, would provide numerous possibilities for arguing, suing, and diddling with the numbers. If (e.g.) Bush wins right around 5/9 or 6/9 or 7/9 of the vote, it's easy enough to divide up the electors, but what if the result is very close to 5.5/9, or 4.5/9, or 6.5/9? A few dozen votes could well mean a difference in the number of electors awarded to each candidate. And the lawyers would be flying in by the plane-load.

All in all, this strikes me as a really bad idea. Stupidly bad or maliciously bad? Hard to tell, and the are not entirely incompatible.

Last, I don't understand why Democrats can't get past the 2000 election, and instead keep bleating about the Electoral College and Diebold electronic voting machines (and I voted for Gore, God help me). The present rules don't obviously favor either party over the other; in particular, Democrats seem not to realize that the same rules (or Diebold machines, for that matter) could perfectly well make the next election turn out in their favor. Conversely, changing the rules could result in their losing twice.

Why don't Democrats see this?
Posted by Occam's Beard

You are brushing aside legitimate concerns about electronic voting. Democrats want honest elections. We oppose "Diebold machines" on principle.

If you want pure pragmatism, once the fix is in, the Republicans will never lose an election they don't want to lose. They will have total control of the electoral process. How will that benefit Democrats.

Dr. Weevil, you are correct, that is how we distribute electoral votes in Maine.

Orbitron, if it was about legitimate concerns, then he would be bankrolling the intiative for his own state.

It seems your projecting your desire to screw the Republicans out of a chance of a electoral victories, and it ain't fooling anyone

Seems to me the REAL reason Gore lost is that the system is biased towards small states. All states get 2 electoral votes (representing the number of their senators) in addition to a number proportional to their population. Bush won 30 states, so this gave him a decisive number of extra electoral votes.

I may be getting this wrong though.

I don't think Colorado needs pork. What they do need, however, is a good defense against bulldozers.

As someone who lives in a red state and, hence, is irrelevant in a presidential election, I welcome the splitting of state's electoral votes.

I think all the electoral votes (with the exception of the two that each state is entitled to)should be allocated on a congressional district by congressional district basis. This way, candidates might have some incentive to focus on states that they probably can't win outright,might pay some more attention to parts of that state. For example, New York is usually a hopeless case for Republicans, but they could win several electoral votes that way in upstate NY. Much of the south is hostile to the democrats electorally, but they would probably win all the electoral votes in districts held by minority members of Congress. I think this would discourage parties from writing off entire states because they can't win a simple majority of the vote.

Orbitron,

Just what "principle" causes you to oppose Diebold machines? They're good enough to service the banking ATM network, but not good enough to service a voting network?

For validity, we could issue "voting cards" and PIN's, but you would likely complain that that is probably more confusing than punching butterfly ballots, and there go more votes down the drain!

maor, you are right about the bias towards small states but I feel somewhat wrong about the effects.

If Al Gore had won one of any number of small to moderate size states that he lost (Arkansas - 6 EV and Tennessee - 11 EV are two that leap conspicuously to mind), he would have won the Electoral college and the mess in Florida would only be a footnote.

The largest 11 eleven states have a total of 270 EV's (California alone has 54, almost 20% of the total needed). The remaining 40 plus DC total 268 EV's.

There are only about half a dozen states (plus DC) where there are more 'senatorial' EV's than 'congressional' EVs and another half dozen where they are equal.

This is one of the reasons that there was rampant speculation (now long forgotten by many) that Al Gore would be elected with a minority of the popular vote because he was projected to win narrowly in states with large numbers of EV's and lose big in the remainder.

It's difficult to win the electoral college JUST by winning small states. Al Gore did prove it can be lost by not winning enough of them.

If I may hijack the discussion for just a little bit longer and talk about Diebold:

The Diebold mess is not anti-tech. Nor is it a Dem issue. The issue is, purely and simply, one of incompetence on the part of the vendors, and a complete disregard for our real needs.

It is possible to set up e-voting in such a way that it can be open, accountable, and correctable. Why should Diebold and others fight to prevent such a setup?

Hey, I'm not very interested in the Diebold debate, but I noticed something recently when I was getting money from the bank -- they have Diebold ATMs.

Are people arguing that this company is so untrustworthy with our votes, but it's okay for our money? Just a thought.

Orbitron, if it was about legitimate concerns, then he would be bankrolling the intiative for his own state.

It seems your projecting your desire to screw the Republicans out of a chance of a electoral victories, and it ain't fooling anyone
Posted by Nick M.

Nick, why are you accusing the Democrats of wanting to conduct fraudulent elections when all the evidence points to the Republicans and Diebold (and other manufacturers) colluding to do so?

Hey, I'm not very interested in the Diebold debate, but I noticed something recently when I was getting money from the bank -- they have Diebold ATMs.

Are people arguing that this company is so untrustworthy with our votes, but it's okay for our money? Just a thought.
Posted by The Un-Candidate

Yes.

You get receipts for your ATM transactions, and your bank sends you a statement.

There is no way to verify or audit the votes counted by Diebold voting machines, and those of other manufacturers.

Orbitron,

Just what "principle" causes you to oppose Diebold machines? They're good enough to service the banking ATM network, but not good enough to service a voting network?

For validity, we could issue "voting cards" and PIN's, but you would likely complain that that is probably more confusing than punching butterfly ballots, and there go more votes down the drain!
Posted by Rex

Rex, the principle involved is that of free and fair elections. While you apparently do not value this principle, many of us do.

Oh, and the gratuitous insult really gives your argument a lot of weight.

Orbitron,

I hold no brief for Diebold machines, and frankly couldn't care less whether or not they're ever adopted.

The part I don't understand is why Democrats feel that Diebold is necessarily going to go into the business of fixing elections for the Republicans. Can you clarify this for me?

Also, it seems to me that those that oppose newer technology can't also squawk about use of the old technology. We can't use a show of hands, so it's either e-voting, with its potential for fraud (even with proposed safeguards), or hanging chads.

As I'm sure you'll agree, it's intellectually indefensible to reserve objections to a voting method until seeing the results it provides.

Markm,

You're right, splitting Florida's electoral votes in the 2000 election proportionally would have obviated the mess…for Florida, and we would now be waiting for the Taliban to be bored to death.

The principle of proportional allocation of electoral votes fails for me because at some point we need a mechanism to make the vote binary – A wins, B loses, and that's that. "Hail to the Chief" for A, "too bad, so sad, bye bye" for B. Proportional allocation has the potential to be like the popular vote in providing an essentially smooth continuum of results, and thereby to generate impressive rancor and opportunity for skulduggery.

For example, suppose the Electoral College vote were nearly even. Proportional allocation would not only make that more likely, but would provide motivation to recount a few individual precincts in the hopes of changing the outcome of the national election, even if the state encompassing those precincts overall went strongly for one candidate. Under the present system, there would be no such point except in the extraordinary circumstance that the electoral votes were close enough to be swung by one state, and that that state was evenly divided (the Florida case, which I don't believe had ever happened before).

Proportional allocation would increase the likelihood of close-run things in the Electoral College, since the Electoral College vote under the present rules is always much more decisive than the popular vote. Furthermore, proportional allocation would increase the viability of third party candidates, and would therefore decrease the chances of any candidate achieving the required absolute majority in the Electoral College. Consequently, elections would more commonly be thrown in the House of Representatives, resulting in Presidents chosen in the archetypal smoke-filled rooms and utterly lacking in any mandate.

I think the problem a lot of Democrats have with the Diebold machines is the politics of the CEO, who is a Republican and has donated to Republican causes, including Bush's reelection campaign. While there may be nothing to it, something we take as seriously as voting ought to be free of even the appearance of any bias anywhere along the line.

Eamon - I think the "a lot of Democrats" that you are referring to then have a higher degree of believing "conspiracy stories" and are "eager" to "blame".

I'm generalizing of course but that "a lot of Democrats" have the same propensity to blame Bush for the "failure" that allowed 9/11 to happen (without understanding that even if Bush went to war with Afghanistan or killed Bin Laden it wouldn't have stopped 9/11 and Democrats would've been all over Bush for unilaterally acting against Afghanistan etc).... and that "a lot of Democrats" have been all over Rumsfeld for the prison abuse scandal as if Rumsfeld should be held directly or indirectly responsible for people who did wrong doing when he is heads up over a million or two employees in the military and the Department of Defense.

Chris B - Thank you very much for reminding us of the data concerning electoral votes. It is interesting to note that Bush won some big states and a lot of small states and in sufficient numbers to win the presidency. The fell swoop of lawyers into Florida on behalf of Al Gore and the subsequent debacle that ensued and the media's constant attempt at spinning things against Bush was "eye poppingly absurd". Democrats hurt themselves when they try to rewrite history and spin the FL debacle as Republicans trying to "steal" the election when a lot of intelligent Americans know otherwise. It'd be wise for Democrats to lay off that issue for ever... but secretly, I'm glad they don't because it digs their hole even deeper for themselves.

Yes. This is a little off topic.... But it illustrates the lengths that leftists will go to in France to "control"... to the point of hurting Frances' fiscal ability to serve the public (kind of like unions in the last decade). :)

Link to San Francisco Chronicle story here

Here is a link to plenty of information on why paperless electronic voting is such a terrible idea.

Oh, and to those of you who think I'm being paranoid: Why should I put a little thing like stealing an election past people who think torture is acceptable?

I am not a Democrat. I like the idea of electronic voting. I do not trust Diebold to provide voting machines. As I understand it, Diebold does not use open architecture software. As such, they can hide ways to cheat -- intentional or not -- deep within the voting machines.

And as for the original post; whay wouldn't he start be reforming California?

"Nick, why are you accusing the Democrats of wanting to conduct fraudulent elections when all the evidence points to the Republicans and Diebold (and other manufacturers) colluding to do so?"...Orbitron

There is no such evidence except in the fantasyland you live in.

Democrats "think the problem a lot of Democrats have with the Diebold machines is the politics of the CEO, who is a Republican and has donated to Republican causes, including Bush's reelection campaign."...Eamon

The person you refer to has resigned, but why you believe registering as a Republican and donating money makes one suspect of planning election fraud?

Seeing this makes me ask the eternal question: Where is the sane liberal? I keep hearing about him/her, but I think it's just an urban legend.

Okay, I read all the articles at the link from Orbitron, and I still fail to see what all the fuss is about. My present voting is in a voting booth, where the curtain closes when I pull a big lever, and then I push small levers for each of my choices. The machine is set up so that only the proper number of votes in each category can be cast. When I am done, I pull the big lever which both opens the curtain, registers the vote, and resets all the small levers.

These machines have been in use for decades. There is no paper trail. There is no way of determining whether or not MY vote was accurately counted. Before voting, I sign the voter registry next to my name so that the poll-watchers can verify that my signature matches what's on file. Another poll watcher keeps track of the total number of people by writing down each name on a numbered list. At the end of the ballotign day, the total number of voters is compared to the total number of registered votes--as measured by the big lever action and not the small lever actions. After all, people are entitled to vote for fewer than all the vacancies or proposals.

I assume that when each machine is set up for voting, the poll-watchers verify that the different combinations of levers work and that the voting input matches the totaled output. That can be done with the Diebold machines too. So what is the big deal? Why this insistence on a paper audit trail when a paper audit trail doesn't exist under the current voting methods?

The conspiracy nuts come out of the woodwork for an electronic machine but not for a mechanical machine. What's the difference? Do you really think I couldn't rig a mechanical machine? I could, but the pre-checks are the safeguard so that it doesn't happen. Why do some people think that you couldn't do the same thing with an electronic machine? In fact, it would be easier with an electronic machine. Here's how. Computer experts at the state level verify the program before it is installed, and then the same program is installed under supervision at every voting machine. Simple. (That's not to minimize the effort involved in verifying the program initially, or the physical safeguards needed while installing the program on the machines, but jeez louise, these are not new problems nor difficult to resolve.)

Another point that has been made before, but not on this thread (I don't recall where I read it):

A printed receipt proving that your vote was recorded sounds like a good idea, but:

a. It doesn't actually prove anything, since any competent programmer could print a receipt without incrementing the vote totals to match.

b. It wouldn't facilitate recounts unless every single voter could be counted on to save his or her receipt, which would never happen.

c. (Here's the part I read somewhere.) It would encourage vote buying and intimidation. As it is now, mobsters and thugs can encourage you to vote for their guy, can threaten you if you don't, and can grill you afterwards about how you voted, but -- as long as they're not allowed to look over your shoulder in the voting-booth -- they can't demand proof. There's nothing to prevent you from telling your boss, your friends, your spouse, your union leader, or anyone else that you voted for X when you actually voted for Y. Unless of course the vote for Y turns out unanimous in your precinct, in which case you're screwed, but how often does that happen?

Orbo - See my post on 6:16 at 7:05 PM. It applies to you! :)

Your text - "Oh, and to those of you who think I'm being paranoid: Why should I put a little thing like stealing an election past people who think torture is acceptable?"

Who thinks torture is acceptable? Alan Dershowitz is one .... Must be the leftists you are talking about. More examples of leftists (big govt types) who think torture is acceptable = Pol Pot, Stalin, etc. etc.

What is common about these folks? They stole elections and were to the far left. My point? I wouldn't put it past ANYBODY who wants too much power, but in this country there is a fairly decent amount of checks and balances.

For the record, I've been working with computers for 15 years and have been considered a "senior" in my field for 8 of the 15 (grin) and under no circumstances do I want to see paperless voting. Computer voting is not the direction we should be headed. CNN, ABC, Yahoo, Ebay, Amazon, etc. can all be brought down for hours at a time by hackers and with Distributed Denial of Service attacks for hours. EVERY (that is every for those of you in Orbo land) piece of software has hundreds of "bugs" or flaws or security vulnerabilities. Every Operating System has flaws. I do not object on the grounds that the voters would be incompetent because there is no dummy proof voting system. I object on the grounds that we need the ability to do recounts and have paper in the event of power outages and denial of service attacks.

And for every CEO contributor to Republicans there can be found CEO contributors to the Democrats. It fluctuates from year to year and it is FACT that during the Clinton years CEO's contributed more to Democrats than Republicans.

MJ Seeing this makes me ask the eternal question: Where is the sane liberal? I keep hearing about him/her, but I think it's just an urban legend. - I've been asking similar questions for awhile.... even of so-called "moderates" who then show their stripes by calling Bush a "liar", thinking that conservatives are "racist", "anti-environment", "for the rich", "religious extremists" ....

Dr Weevil-

The point of a paper receipt isn't that the voter takes it home (which could/would lead to coerced voting), but rather that the paper receipts are saved at the polls, in case a manual recount is required. (ever hear of a computer crashing and losing data?)

The whole issue with the Diebold (and other) electronic voting machines (read "PCs running windows") is NOT partisan at all - a large number of respected computer experts on all sides have raised serious questions. Avi Rubin of Johns Hopkins University has written extensively about this, and even volunteered as a poll worker in Baltimore where they were using them.

Pat in CA,

If we are going to have a meaningful discussion of computer voting, we need to define the terms. There are different levels of computer voting, and consequently different levels of needed/possible security. Let me make some assumptions, and if any of them are in error, please let me know.

(1) I can build an electronic voting machine that doesn't rely on a fancy operating system. In fact, I can build an electronic voting machine that is entirely hardware which will tally and report votes.

(2) I could also build an electronic voting machine that contains some software to eliminate some or most of the hardware of my original machine. The degree of software vs. hardware is entirely a design choice.

(3) I can build this machine to be a stand-alone machine or integrate it into a network.

(4) I can make a network that uses dedicated phone lines which cannot be tapped via a telephone.

(5) I can control physical access to the electronic voting machine.

(6) I can control physical access to the entry and exit points of the network.

(7) At the consolidation centers for votes (voting precincts and progressively higher subentities of the state), I can take the results of my electronic voting machine and (a) manually report the results, (b) manually enter the results into the network, or (c) automatically enter the results into the network.

(8) Two person control is considered good enough for nuclear security. (I can explain this in greater detail, but suffice it to say that once the President gives the launch order, that order passes through nodes that each have two people to authenticate the launch order, and without both people verifying the order, nothing gets launched.) Two person control is also considered good enough for voting security. The way it is done in many places is to have one Republican and one Democrat. That prevents collusion.

Now, given the above, why couldn't you and I design a machine and system for paperless voting? (As I alluded to in my earlier post, we actually have paperless voting in New York--it's mechanical!)

"(ever hear of a computer crashing and losing data?)"

Not for a well designed system, I haven't. Internal backups, quadded logic, UPS's, filtered lines, etc. These "problems" have been solved long ago in the space, financial, and military industries, friend.

Orbitron,

I divide objections to e-voting into two classes: those who worry about honest glitches, and those who worry about fraud by, in this case, Diebold.

I have no problem with the former group, and think that a paper record of the vote seems sensible. Those concerned over glitches probably exaggerate the problems of e-voting relative to those connected with paper now, but that's understandable, as everyone is more sensitive to the drawbacks of newly-introduced technology than to those of existing methods.

I skimmed the link you provided above, and frankly am underwhelmed. I expected some sort of smoking gun, and there is none. For my money, if the League of Women Voters thinks it's OK, as indicated in the site you linked to, there can't be that much of a problem.

The latter group, on the other hand, seems to have watched too many Oliver Stone movies. Their concern about Diebold arises, as Eamon suggests, because the CEO has donated to Republican candidates, including (gasp!) George Bush? That's it?

You can't be serious.

Furthermore,

...all the evidence points to the Republicans and Diebold (and other manufacturers) colluding to do so...?

So...now it's a conspiracy? The Republicans, Diebold the other manufacturers...they're all in on the fix!

And what is "all the evidence," anyway? So far I haven't been offered any evidence.

Seriously, can you see how disinterested onlookers can start to doubt the balance of those cleaving to the "collusion" viewpoint? On its face, it's risible.

Any hint of voting fraud involving their machines would kill Diebold's business. Dead. Not just voting machines, but ATMs, the lot. Trust is their business, and no one would trust them thereafter with their votes, much less their money. And they can be certain that the MoveOn.orgs, Streisands, and Moores of this world would be watching for anything that could even remotely be construed as inculpatory. If I were CEO, I wouldn't allow the company to get into the voting business, not in the circumstances.

And what would they gain by "colluding" in fixing an election? George Bush's re-election? That'll probably happen anyway. Do they have it so good now with Bush in office, and would have it so bad later, if Kerry were to be elected? I doubt that either outcome would make much difference to their prospects. Banks would still buy ATMs, and Diebold would prosper, either way.

Diebold executives - as individuals, not a faceless corporation - would be risking prosecution, prison time, and losing their reputations, fortunes, and business futures to achieve something that most likely will take place anyway (and actually doesn't confer much advantage on them in any case). Does that make sense? Would you do that?

(As an aside, think about the mechanics of the fix. The CEO sidles down to the programmers (half of whom are probably Deaniacs) and suggests putting a little "feature" into the software, and counts on none of them blabbing. Or does he come in on Saturday night and write some code on his own? Please.)

The whole thing is irrational. At this point, if that's the best case that opponents can make against Diebold, I'm sorry to say that I think they're nutjobs.

Rex - Yes. Some are in error to some extent (you asked me to correct you):
1) Almost everything that is digital/electronic has an operating system. Maybe not fancy, but it does. VCR's, cell phones and even microwaves have an operating system. And yes, the touch screen voting machines that they tried in LA county have an operating system. Most of the time, the VCR's, microwaves and cell phones operate with 98% of their functionality without a user seeing any flaws whatsoever. And yes, the more code that resides in the operating system the more chance of seeing flaws. The touch screen systems have plenty of code.

3) Yes. You can have "standalone" touch screens win which case you have to take something (just like the paper ballots) to a central area in a precinct. OR you can have the "networked" touch screens which everyone seems to think is so great but raises all of the issues that I talked about above. No network is impenatrable no matter if it's "public", "private" (with dedicated circuits just for those machines). This addresses your point #4. Making a network "private" decreases the chance of a hacker gaining control but doesn't eliminate (especially since some polling places are churches, schools, firehouses [really public places where a disguised as janitor person can slip into a wiring closet] the possibility of hacking. This addresses your #6 and #7

8) If you remember the Florida debacle how many people were alarmed at coming to the understanding that it was predominantly Democrat precincts in Democrat counties that had no oversight by even a SINGLE Republican in some instances that were really doing some screwy things when trying to recount and recount and trying to extend and extend the recount deadline and HEAVEN FORBID that Republicans stepped in and said hey wait a minute "rules need to be followed". That was the jist.

There is no way that federally an executive order or appropriations bill from Congress can mandate that all counties have:
1) specific equipment
2) a Republican and a Democrat overseeing (How would you enforce this? What would be the litmus test to make sure that you really were a Democrat or Republican? Who would stand in for all other parties?)

As a Senior Computer person, I am opposed to an electronic computerized voting system that is networked (not because of the intelligence of the voters) because of the following reasons:
1) Networked systems can be tampered with fairly easily
2) Computer systems are in constant need of upgrade every 4 years (costly)
3) Operating systems on these devices cannot be guaranteed to be less faulty than a "butterfly ballot" or mechanical machine thing in NY.
4) There has not been a demostrated NEED for anyone to really switch to a "touch screen voting system" that had a higher failure rate in LA county last year than the butterfly ballot type voting system in FL.

Occam's Beard - I generally have agreed with 99% of what you've written in the past 2 months. I think you are usually right on the money.

However, I'm not talking about a "fix" done by the manufacturer or software vendor of the voting machines.

The objections I have are external forces, from the 4 year replacement cycle (cost) to the "sleeper" janitors that have access to wiring closets or what not that could tap in and the relatively high set of UNPROVABLE SECURITY BREACHES that may be possible with the compterized setup.

"(ever hear of a computer crashing and losing data?)"

Not for a well designed system, I haven't. Internal backups, quadded logic, UPS's, filtered lines, etc. These "problems" have been solved long ago in the space, financial, and military industries, friend.


And the commodity PC hardware and OS in the Diebold systems has all this? What about program source code that is reviewed by independent third parties?

Getting back to the Electorical College, has anyone seen data on Electorial Votes by Congressional district? I've seen the 2000 Presidential election broken down by popular votes to counties, but never by the Congressional District.

Michael

This doesn't answer your question directly but it's a start

Pat,

However, I'm not talking about a "fix" done by the manufacturer or software vendor of the voting machines.

The objections I have are external forces, from the 4 year replacement cycle (cost) to the "sleeper" janitors that have access to wiring closets or what not that could tap in and the relatively high set of UNPROVABLE SECURITY BREACHES that may be possible with the compterized setup.

You raise excellent points, and we do agree pretty much across the board.

In this case, the "fix" by the manufacturer (the allegation that Diebold was a Republican shill) was all I was talking about, as I wanted to understand the rational basis, if any, for that suspicion.

Occam's Beard,

No rational basis that I can see :)

I did a search at Google for the breakdown of Electorial Votes. You can find it here http://www.bushcountry.org/news/oct_news_pages/g_102803_aten_2000_presidential_election_amendment_electoral_college.htm

I did a search at Google for the breakdown of Electorial Votes. You can find it here http://www.bushcountry.org/news/oct_news_pages/g_102803_aten_2000_presidential_election_amendment_electoral_college.htm

Michael - you can post links by doing the following:

Substitute the left parenthesis for the less than sign and the right paren for the greater than sign. I can't actually do the less than or greater than sign because then it'll turn into HTML which would be rendered by Jane's server.

(a href="www.completeurl.here")Link Name that you want people to click on here(/a)

Pat in CA, the current occupant of the White House and his closest associates think torture is acceptable, that's who.

The past four years has shown them to be utterly untrustworthy.

> These machines have been in use for decades. There is no paper trail.

All that means is that the proper kind of electronic voting machine can actually be an improvement over the mechanical ones (i.e. optical scanning.)

Pat in CA: Why not just use &lt; for < and &gt; for >? And you call yourself a computer specialist 8^D.

Orbo -

the current occupant of the White House and his closest associates think torture is acceptable, that's who.

That's funny. No statements from them have been made that remotely suggests that they "think torture is acceptable". You are acting like many liberals who say they know what is in the minds of Republicans.

Liberals think now:
1) We are OK with torture
2) Racist
3) Sexist
4) Anti-environment
5) Anti-poor but for the rich

It would be wise for liberals to debate with us on substantive solution proposals. Otherwise they will continue to lose in elections...

Examples:
1) Accept that 99.9% of people want a clean environment. Now, when we debate science or if we do agree that a problem exists and we want to implement a solution, it would be wise to actually go over the merits of a solution instead of dismissing us as anti-environment.
2) Accept that 99% of people want no racism. Conservatives like Ward Connerly want no preferential treatment based on race starting from this day forward. Conservatives agree with him. Instead of debating us on the merits of that solution we are called racist.

Anyone new to politics can see right through your rhetoric Orbo. And I'm happy about that.

Comments are Closed.