Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government Politics

Senators Clinton and Kerry Submit Open Voting Bill 1037

Posted by Zonk
from the power-to-the-people dept.
An anonymous reader writes "DailyKos is reporting that a group of senators and representatives including Hillary Clinton, John Kerrry, and Tubbs Jones, have proposed an 'open-source' voting bill. This bill (The Count Every Vote Act of 2005) corrects many of the problems in the last election. Notably, it requires paper receipts, and that the source and object code of all electronic voting machines to be open and readable by the public. " Commentary on the bill available at the Miami Herald.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senators Clinton and Kerry Submit Open Voting Bill

Comments Filter:
  • Is it just me, or do all politics lately revolve around this same theme?

    Corporate lobbies push for proprietary voting machines, the public interest is for open-source voting machines.
    Corporate lobbies want extensions to patent laws, public interest is to reasonably limit patent protections.
    Corpate lobbies want to DRM everything with legal enforcement, public interest is to have fair use.

    The more explanations I hear as to why corporate lobbying is a necessary evil, the more convinced I become of how much of a negative influence they are having on our society.

    ...but then, on slashdot we're probably all just hopeless libertarians anyway ;)
    • by Anonymous Coward
      ...but then, on slashdot we're probably all just hopeless libertarians anyway ;)

      They can have my unregulated monopoly when they pry it from my cold dead hands!
    • by oirtemed (849229) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:25PM (#11796371)
      Thats why campaign contributions should only be able to be made by those legally able to vote. That would eliminate corporate donations, and if some CEO wanted to put up their own money, it would be more visible. While this doesn't address lobbying in particular, it is a start.

      The best solution would be more Congressional accountability, but that is not so easy to achieve.

      • > Thats why campaign contributions should only be able to be made by those legally able to vote.

        I second that! If you look at why the concept of the corporation was invented anyway it was primarily because it eased the beurocratic overhead of making sure all the investors received their investment returns and could collectively manage a project.
        I would argue, with modern tools, one could set up a system with independent contractors (think Ebay) that could achieve the same effectiveness without the fo
      • by Bios_Hakr (68586) <xptical AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:49PM (#11796646) Homepage
        And cap the maximum donation at $1000. Don't allow Bill Gates to be any more powerful than a mid-west farmer. Each of them can drop their $1k and offer their vote, but nothing more.
      • by Aexia (517457) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @05:47PM (#11797201)
        They're already illegal.

        The problem isn't contributions; it's that it costs so damn much to run a serious campaign and candidates have to spend 12 hours a day raising money instead of being out campaigning. Why does it cost so much? TV ads!

        We need to reduce the cost of political ads on *our* public airwaves.
        • by amRadioHed (463061) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:01PM (#11797841)
          We need to reduce the cost of political ads on *our* public airwaves.

          How about we do one better any just eliminate political ads on our public airwaves. Try as I might, I just can't see any benefit to political commercials. They are full of mudslinging and sound bites that certainly leave the viewer less informed rather then more informed.

          If we could cut the official campaigning down to less then 6 months, but during that time focus on debates and real discussion of issues we would have both better informed voters and cut the cost of the election down by huge amounts.
          • But if we allowed for more debates and actual factual statements in advertising, how would we get our traditional idiot in the oval office?
          • by ktakki (64573) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @10:35PM (#11799490) Homepage Journal
            How about we do one better any just eliminate political ads on our public airwaves. Try as I might, I just can't see any benefit to political commercials. They are full of mudslinging and sound bites that certainly leave the viewer less informed rather then more informed.

            From a First Amendment standpoint, banning political ads will never happen. Political speech is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when the Bill of Rights was drafted and these ads are, for better or worse, political speech.

            Mudslinging is as old as politics, and it's not going away any time soon. There's a peculiar paradox in the US: voters tell pollsters that they abhor negative campaigning, yet negative campaigning wins elections every time. A politician that refrains from going negative when his opponent does so is a politician that's looking for work in the private sector come November.

            k.
            • I liked what Bill Clinton said when he was promoting his biography on the Daily Show: It's not "going negative" when you're responding to an opponent's attack. Clinton loved it when his opponents went negative because it gave him an opportunity to counterpunch and while looking squeaky clean. Of course a politician who refrains from going negative when his opponent does so is going to lose, he's just letting himself get beat up. No voter likes a wuss. The trick is just defending yourself in the right w
    • by torpor (458)
      .. is, then, a corporate lobby which pushes for the end of all corporate lobbying.

      that'll screw 'em!

      (oh, btw, it should be a publically traded corporation ...)
    • by PatHMV (701344) <post@patrickmartin.com> on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:52PM (#11796673) Homepage
      It may use the term, and call for the software source to be viewable by the public after being submitted to the "Commission", but it is certainly not "open source" as we normally use that phrase. Open source programmers aren't usually subject to background checks. And I assume they mean for this last clause here to mean the compiled binaries, but by its strict language, they'll have to print the source code in newspapers, because it can't be transferred over the internet.

      As for paper ballots, the idea is good, but will it really work well in practice? The machines will have to be able to void individual paper ballots if the voter, looking through the viewplate, realizes he didn't vote the right way. All this paper handling adds a lot of mechanical complexity to the machine, making breakdowns more likely.

      Here's the text of the bill calling for programmers to have background checks (p. 10):
      ''(i) The manufacturer shall conduct background checks on individuals who are programmers and developers before such individuals work on any software used in connection with the voting system.


      ''(ii) The manufacturer shall document the chain of custody for the handling of software used in connection with voting systems.

      ''(iii) The manufacturer shall ensure that any software used in connection with the voting system is not transferred over the Internet.
      • by mrchaotica (681592) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @05:23PM (#11796977)
        Increased risk of a machine breakdown is worth it compared to increased risk of widespread vote tampering via a single SQL command!

        Of course, the background check part is a bit dumb -- they should have people audit the code, and run background checks on them. And I hope they mean they just can't tranfer the final copy of the code over the internet; with GPG the internet should be secure (and if it's not, they could just ask the NSA for some help).
    • by bheading (467684) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:53PM (#11796678)
      The public interest is for a hand-counted vote, observed by all the candidates and other independent members of the public, which in other countries is typically completed well within 24 hours of the polls closing.

      Any kind of mechanised vote counting whatsoever serves to hide the vote counting process from the electorate. Receipts are a red herring; they are the only way to verify the electronic count and, as a result, render the electronic count completely redundant.
    • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Sunday February 27, 2005 @05:27PM (#11797015) Homepage Journal
      The only reason corporations have power is that they have lots of money. The only reason lots of money is important is that a trained monkey with lots of money will win over Abe Lincoln with a stack of fliers in the back of a Honda Insight.

      Now, if you had a well-informed populous with sharp critical-thinking skills this wouldn't be the case. But that's not what we have and it isn't.

      So, the only way to get corporations out of politics is to teach children how to reason. Good luck.
  • by Firethorn (177587) * on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:17PM (#11796301) Homepage Journal
    Will wonders never cease?

    Something I agree with Kerry & Clinton on?
    • by Siniset (615925) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:24PM (#11796358) Homepage Journal
      Hey politicians aren't totally evil, sometimes. Like when they're supporting bills that have no chance in hell in passing.
    • by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:24PM (#11796361) Homepage Journal
      This is an area where reasonable people of all political persuasions ought to be able to come to an agreement. Based on your comment, I'm guessing that you're a conservative and I'd probably disagree with at least three-quarters of your beliefs -- but the one thing we can almost certainly agree on is that every eligible voter who wants to vote should be able to do so in a way that guarantees that vote is counted. We may argue all day about policy, but the mechanisms by which that policy is created and enacted must be trustworthy if that policy is to be anything more than the whim of a few autocrats.

      So, what Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, independents, and, hell, I don't know, Prohibitionists and Natural Law believers all ought to ask themselves is: if anyone, of any party or stripe, opposes this -- what possible reason can they have for such opposition; or whether, what reason that does not mark them as irredeemably evil?
  • This sounds... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by oberondarksoul (723118) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:17PM (#11796302) Homepage
    ...scarily like a good idea. It'll be interesting to see how far this can get, and how long before the inevitable corportate opposition to this begins to mount. I can already see Diebold rallying their forces...
    • Funny (Score:5, Informative)

      by daveschroeder (516195) * on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:24PM (#11796360)
      Two TWO YEAR OLD BILLS that have already been introduced in the House and Senate would do JUST THIS, namely, require permanent, voter verified receipts and open source all code on e-voting machines. See my post here [slashdot.org].

      Also, Diebold already has the capability to add paper receipts, WHICH WERE NOT REQUIRED UNDER HAVA, to all of its e-voting deployments. They're just a contractor. They'll build and deploy whatever local governments will buy. But if you're one of those people who thinks that Diebold, a multi-thousand person corporation that prides itself on reliable customer interface systems, is literally conspiring to rig US elections on the basis of offhanded campaign quotes in the context of GOP fundraising by Diebold's CEO, however inappropriate they were, then I suppose none of what I just said will matter to you.
  • by fishdan (569872) * on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:17PM (#11796303) Homepage Journal
    ...The Count Every Vote Act of 2005 will provide a voter verified paper ballot for every vote cast in electronic voting machines and ensures access to voter verification for all citizens, including language minority voters, illiterate voters and voters with disabilities. The bill mandates that this ballot be the official ballot for purposes of a recount.

    Why should the manual count paper of paper ballots be the official recount. Why would there be a recount of a machine tabulated vote? Does someone think the machine miscounted? And why why why do people keep thinking that a hand count done by humans would be more accurate than a machine count?

    • And why why why do people keep thinking that a hand count done by humans would be more accurate than a machine count?

      Maybe Florida 2000? Where the input method could be more accurately parsed by humans than by machines?

      The advantage of a hand count is that if you don't trust it, you can repeat it yourself, or have someone you trust do it. With a machine count, you have only the machine vendor's assurance.

      • Florida was definitely crazy -- but for me, I thought that once it was in the hands of the "counters" it was now a matter of who THEY wanted to win. The fact that they *could* block or approve a ballot meant that we were now suffering at the impartiality of people. And I don't trust the impartiality of people. At least with an open source machine, the code and the machine can be examined for proof of it's impartiality.

        What's to prevent one counter from blocking/approving ballots according to personal pr

    • It's not a problem of the machine miscounting. Part of the concept involved here is to allow us to be sure the machine is not intentionally lying about the results.
    • by Fjornir (516960) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:22PM (#11796345)
      Did you miss the stories about the machines that lost votes? If there had been a paper ballot printed by the machine there would have been no data loss.

      Never mind the "Do we trust diebold" conspiracy theories however (in)valid they may be, the voter should have a right to see that their ballot was cast as the intended it to be. Unless you've got some cool superman xray vision or mad van Eck phreaking powers you can't tell what the machine is recording as your vote.

    • When you're working with a computer, you don't necessarily get the results you want. You get the results the programmer wanted you to have.

      I can write one or two lines of code that would screw up vote counts in any number of ways- adding two votes to the vote count instead of adding one, switching the vote counts at the end, or any of numerous other ways.

  • please (Score:5, Funny)

    by MankyD (567984) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:17PM (#11796308) Homepage
    for the love of god, please please please let this happen. just this once let a good bill pass.
  • by Faust7 (314817) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:20PM (#11796326) Homepage
    The article indicates that Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) are the primary proponents of this bill - though I'm sure Kerry also supports it.
  • voting reform (Score:5, Insightful)

    by liquid stereo (602956) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:20PM (#11796333)
    This won't happen. For one, it makes too much sense. But, the biggest reason why it won't happen is because the government has been bought and the owners like what they have.
  • Typesetting (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sweed (851139) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:22PM (#11796347)
    Man, the type-
    setting of that
    bill is aw-
    ful. Do all
    bills have stu-
    pid margin
    sizes?
  • by fluor2 (242824) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:25PM (#11796374)
    How can it be proprietary voting machines?
    it's like
    Votes counted
    and do some small math?

    it's not exactly difficult.
  • by ABeowulfCluster (854634) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:25PM (#11796376)
    "Is that a zero or a one, I think they meant to vote THIS way"
  • Good and bad (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GQuon (643387) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:30PM (#11796423) Journal
    "Paper records of electronic voting:" Good, as long as voters can't prove to somebody else who they voted for. That would facilitate vote buying.

    "Election-day registration": Need to read the bill. If volounteer (partisan) groups get to haphazardly register people at the polls, that's a bad thing. Registrations should be in order some weeks before the elections.

    "Election Day as a national holiday.": Good. Productivity could go down, but it could increase turn-out and the importance of the election in people's minds.

    "Restoration of voting rights for former felons": Not sure. Is a felon that has served its sentence entitled to the same rights as others?

    "the source and object code of all electronic voting machines to be open and readable by the public." Definately good. The many-eyeballs approach to security validation is perfect for this case, since it's an application with such a huge number of interested parties.

    Now, how about non-citizens voting and proof of identification? Anything on that?
    • Re:Good and bad (Score:3, Insightful)

      "Restoration of voting rights for former felons": Not sure. Is a felon that has served its sentence entitled to the same rights as others?

      A felon that has served his/her punishment, in the form of a sentence, should no longer be considered to have a societal debt. Otherwise, the person is still being punished long after the expiry of the sanction.

      If a person can expect to be punished for the rest of their lives, regardless of the declared sentence length, then there is little reason for that individual
    • Re:Good and bad (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Is a felon that has served its sentence entitled to the same rights as others?

      I am a felon, technically. I was convicted of a crime I never commited, because I couldn't afford a lawyer and legal aid was turned down because I have a job. I served a year in jail because some drunk woman claimed I beat her. She later recanted (the police assumed she was threatened to do so), and didn't show up at the trial, but it was enough to convict me.

      Felons, guilty or otherwise, should not be punished for the remai
    • Re:Good and bad (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Cerv (711134)
      "Restoration of voting rights for former felons": Not sure. Is a felon that has served its sentence entitled to the same rights as others?

      If someone has served their sentence then they have "payed thier debt to society", so why shouldn't they be able to vote? It seems to me that allowing ex-cons to fully participate in society would help rehabilitate them. (Though I have nothing other than my gut feeling to back that up.) Disallowing them from ever voting again would seem to send a message that they are no

    • Re:Good and bad (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cryptoluddite (658517) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @05:15PM (#11796905)
      "Restoration of voting rights for former felons": Not sure. Is a felon that has served its sentence entitled to the same rights as others?

      How can you now be sure? What part of the Constitution says the goverment can even take away one's right to vote? The 15th amendment states that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof".

      So either felons are not people or states are already in violation of the constitution by denying them the right to vote at least for the senate (even while in prison). And what is the problem with felons voting anyway? Maybe they'll vote for people that will repeal the laws that convicted them? For example, maybe the mass of people convicted on drug offenses will vote to end the drug war? Awesome... the drug war is stupid.

      The prison population shouldn't ever be so large that they should really affect the vote anyway. And if felons are ever are that large of a group then God help us all if they can't vote.
    • Re:Good and bad (Score:3, Insightful)

      by suwain_2 (260792)
      "Restoration of voting rights for former felons"

      I don't have the lawbooks in front of me, but aren't there some places in which exceeding the speed limit by more than 15 m.p.h. is legally considered a felony? The liberal in me says that even if you kill someone, you should still be able to pick the leader of the country. The main argument I can see there is that violent felons won't "think right," to which I ask: what about those who are mentally handicapped?

      non-citizens voting

      I'm not sure I like this
    • Re:Good and bad (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mikrorechner (621077)

      "Election Day as a national holiday.": Good. Productivity could go down, but it could increase turn-out and the importance of the election in people's minds.

      How about doing the presidential election on a sunday? Most people don't have to work on sundays, so productivity loss would not be a problem. In Germany (and most of the EU, I think), all elections are on sundays.
  • by b17bmbr (608864) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:43PM (#11796580)
    the only real problem with last years election is that for most of /.ers, the wrong guy won. the us civil rights commission did two exhaustive studies of florida. guess what? nothing. no fraud, no intimidation, no disenfranchisement. sorry go home. the press did a thorough recount of the ballots. every scenario. guess what. bush still wins. if you want the links, i'll find them, but we're finding voter reg. fraud in ohio, but oops, they'er democratic. and washington state. please. dead people voting, "discovered" ballots, 500 people registered at the same address. recounts until the democrat wins.

    i'm honestly taking sides, because i think there's going to be an amount of chicanery on both sides. but if this is your kool-aid, and you focus on voting problems, a system which has served us for 200 years, then you're living in la la land. the 1960 election was won by fraud. nixon didn't run around the country for years claiming he was robbed, etc. if you're unhappy, how about volunteering next time, as the democrats had to pay campaign workers, while the republicans had 1 million volunteers. oh, and lastly, if you're hanging out at kos, oh nevermind...
    • crap. i'm honestly not taking sides...
    • by MillionthMonkey (240664) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:56PM (#11796709)
      a system which has served us for 200 years

      What are you talking about? Touchscreen systems coupled to black-box counters have not been around for 200 years, and we will never know who won in any district where they were used. It's not like we weren't saying this before the election either. We can't ever prove the election was stolen, but you'll never prove it wasn't either.
    • if you're unhappy, how about volunteering next time, as the democrats had to pay campaign workers, while the republicans had 1 million volunteers.

      Come on, who mods stupid crap like this up to 5?

      1. That volunteer estimate sounds awfully high, and "1 million" sounds like the sort of number someone would just pull out of their ass
      2. No, the republicans are not the only ones who have volunteers
      3. No, the democrats are not the only ones who pay campaign workers

      Oh yes, and please punctuate, you ignorant cunt.

  • by mr. marbles (19251) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:48PM (#11796631)
    Get rid of the electoral college, the Iowa caucus, the New Hampshire primaries, and force advertising to be factually correct. Then maybe, just maybe, there'll be a reasonable candidate.
  • by grumpygrodyguy (603716) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @04:52PM (#11796672)
    This bill (The Count Every Vote Act of 2005) corrects many of the problems in the last election...

    As much as I'd like to believe it was a conspiracy that cost us the election, I just see too many redneck wackos with their gun racks and SUVs and 'W the president' stickers to believe that there isn't a very large portion of this country that willingly supports devolving back to the horse and buggy age as quickly as possible.
    • I realize I shouldn't respond to a Kosvoid troll, but...

      If you were a paid agent of Rove, you could not be more effective at pissing off the undecided voter and making sure the Democrats lose again and again.

      It is said that one should never interrupt an enemy when they are making a mistake, but I am sure that you will pay absolutely no attentention to what I am saying:

      Attitudes like your are what got my ass to the voting booth at 6:30 AM, to vote for the very first time in any election.

      I am going to be ther

  • Not so fast (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kenrod (188428) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:13PM (#11797927)
    The purpose of this bill is not to improve the voting process - the same ideas have been proposed before. The purpose of this bill is to help Democrats get to the polls on election day. Here's how:
    • Forces states to allow ex-felons to vote. In states where felons are allowed to vote, votes can favor Democrats 10:1. Yes, this means states will be forced to allow murderers, rapists, and molesters who have completed parole the opportunity to help select who represents your community. Shouldn't states be allowed to decide this for themselves? And why is it Democrats are so worried about voting rights for ex-cons, anyway? Are Democrats the party of felons ?
    • Make Voting Day a federal holiday. This means all the people who work for the federal, state, and local governments will have higher turnout, as they will have the day off. Guess which way these people vote? People who don't work for the govt won't have the day off.
    • The bill states "failure to provide information concerning citizenship or age" or "a social security number or driver's license number" is not considered a "material omission" that would bar people from voting. All you have to do is sign an affadavit at the poll, on election day. This will allow anyone - anyone at all - to vote. The only chance of having the vote disallowed is in the event of a recount, when the paperwork is checked.

    More here [humaneventsonline.com].

    Finding the text of this bill has been difficult. The PDF at the PFAW website is gone (why???). Here is Google's HTML cache [64.233.167.104].

    Also, I am absolutely convinced there is some form of incestuous relationship between DailyKos and Slashdot. Way too many stories crediting Kos's blog are making it to the Slashdot front page.
    • Re:Not so fast (Score:3, Insightful)

      by be-fan (61476)
      Your line of argument is deeply flawed. The fact that the bill would help the democrats is irrelevent*. It's ad hominem. The bill must be evaluated on the merits of its argument alone.

      I disagree that forcing states to standardize their handling of ex-felons is a bad thing. The vast lack of uniformity in the voting process between states is an abhorance. National elections should be held to a national standards. Whether that means allowing all ex-cons to vote, or preventing all ex-cons from voting is a sepe
      • Re:Not so fast (Score:3, Informative)

        by HapNstance (38538)
        1. I'm pretty sure the constitution gives the power of deciding who gets to vote to the states. So while you might think for national elections it should be decided at a federal level it should take an amendment to change it.
        2. I think if the bill is presented by two democrats and it can be demonstrated resonably that the bill will give a significant advantage to democratic voters then it is an important thing to consider and is not ad hominem.
        3. You seem to be saying ex-con voting rights should be hand
  • by tom's a-cold (253195) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:21PM (#11797984) Homepage
    The bill stinks of having been written by lawyers with no worthwhile input from software people. The buzzwords are there, but the end product is incoherent.

    If the code is open to inspection, there is no need for the background checks. That's just a way of inadvertently preventing the best people from working on the code. Any attempt to license coders sets a disastrous precendent in any event and should be rejected outright.

    "Chain of custody" for code is bullshit; this isn't the pharmaceutical industry. What's really needed is verification that the binary is derived from the published source. The correct way to do that is to fully specify the development environment and configuration that generated the code. Then anyone else can reproduce it.

    The other thing that's needed is a means of verifying that the binary loaded onto the machine is the one generated from the code using the specified development environment. SHA512 (or whatever) hashes can help with this, as can digital signatures. The "can't transfer over the Internet" requirement is inane and seems to be there only because of ignorance about methods of verifying integrity, regardless of how the file gets transferred. Think they've ever heard of VPNs? Do they think there's a risk in using them?

    I agree with a number of the goals of this bill. But it kind of depresses me what a dog's breakfast they have produced.

  • by anj (120842) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @09:05PM (#11798808)
    And the first salvo goes to Candidate H. Clinton.

    Write up a legislative proposal in which most everything sounds good and simple, honest and true. Bury a couple of things in it which are clear attempts at tweaking election results in the favor of the Democrats.

    The real key issues here are the election-day registration, and the votes for felons.

    Election-day registration is, to me, a nightmare of an idea. Without any undeniable proof of citizenship or way to enforce one and only one vote per person, I can envision buses full of illegal aliens being sent from one precinct to another, adding votes for whatever party is paying them. Over the top? Ridiculous? Perhaps... but then, who would have thought we'd have had a local party rep paying people (WITH COCAINE) to fill out batches of bogus voting registration forms? That happened in Ohio in 2004.

    Votes for felons? Well, the current law says they don't have the right to vote. Whether or not that's the right thing to do is certainly debatable. But it's clearly an attempt to generate votes for Democrats -- statistics show that a large majority of felons would likely vote that way.

    If Republicans back the bill, they're giving Democrats a potential (and depending on your views, perhaps unfair) advantage in the next elections. If they don't, the Democrats will make the cry "They're against honest votes!" to the media. Repubs are kinda stuck, since they have no way of doing line-item votes.

    Now... if a politician actually wanted to FIX the system, instead of twist it to their personal favor, we'd resolve the issue of proving citizenship and voting only once. The first is hard, since the US doesn't really have "citizenship papers" like most other countries. The ink-on-the-thumb solution used by the Afghans and Iraqis seemed a pretty simple solution for the second one.
  • by DAldredge (2353) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Sunday February 27, 2005 @11:00PM (#11799668) Journal
    Yet they are against requiring proof of US Citizenship to vote in US national elections...

Mediocrity finds safety in standardization. -- Frederick Crane

Working...