Microsoft Moves To Change NY State Election Law 222
myspace-cn sends us to Bo Lipari's blog where it is revealed that Microsoft has moved forcefully into New York State with proposed changes to NY state election law drafted by Microsoft attorneys. A document has been circulating (PDF) among the legislators for a while now. The proposed changes would gut the source-code escrow and review provisions in current law that were hard-fought-for and passed in New York in 2005. Microsoft is siding with the makers of voting machines that run on Windows — the company doesn't want its code inspected by outsiders. From the article: "Now the software giant has gone a step further, not just saying 'we won't comply with your law' but actively trying to change state law to serve their corporate interests... Adding insult to injury, these changes are being slipped into a bill that may be voted on Monday or Tuesday, June 18 or 19."
rent-a-center, or Rent a Senator? (Score:5, Interesting)
Can someone explain why it is that politicians are allowed to "slip" completely unrelated items into bills that must be voted on all-or-nothing? They do this all the time, tacking on things that only a small minority want, onto a bill that is important and that everyone is going to pass because the main item is needed by most/all.
One reason I could see is if they believed that congress moved too slow to be able to vote on everything unless things were bundled like this. That's a sad excuse still.
The other reason I could see is that there may be too many cases where it was impossible to get a majority vote on any single issue without puting something into the pot for several different interests to help the bill pass.
Anyway, what is this process by which they can just tack on other unrelated provisions? And who gets to say what gets added? Just pay off a senator and it's in basically?
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
When are you American going to say enough is enough and cut down this crap? The US political system is a disaster and designed for corruption and this you think is the best? It's one of the worst political systems I have ever seen.
But I guess, you all feel fine and still think that USA is greatest thing since sliced bread. It is not, I have lived and worked in 6 different 1st world countries and USA is by far the worst.
Re:rent-a-center, or Rent a Senator? (Score:2, Interesting)
In practical application though they create a bill that 65%-70% would agree with and then see how many things they can stick on to make their constituents happy or those that give them funding.
Some would argue that items should pass on their own merit. But then how are you ever going to get a $315 million bridge built to an island with a population of 50?
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
While I agree with the sentiment, I think that statement is somewhere between overbroad and naive. Put yourself in the shoes of an elected official (in any level of government) and see if you can answer the Pop Quiz "Whose call would you take?"
(a) Brad and Angelina call to make an appointment to discuss an issue of importance.
(b) A non-profit public interest group calls to advocate their positions on a specific matter of interest.
(c) A vocal and annoying citizens group (one that represents a large voter base) calls to schedule yet another meeting on a series of topics.
(d) A CEO whose business employs several thousand people in your district and generates big tax revenues for the economy calls to schedule an extended lunch appointment.
(e) Numerous well-informed, educated and articulate individuals who want to make the world a better place call to share their opinions.
If you picked (e), congratulations on being well-intentioned, but good luck making up with all those folks (the ones that matter) that are now pissed off. And good luck getting re-elected.
Electoral laws need reform.
Indeed. But getting that done is uphill both ways. Much like getting citizens to actually vote.
Re:Un. Bee. Leev. A. Bull. (Score:3, Interesting)
Why can't we charge them with attempted electoral fraud, just for trying to hide the code?
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks exactly the opposite to me. Congress supplies funding for the troops, Bush vetoes the funding. After the usual delay in running a new bill through the legislative system, Congress should pass the exact same bill funding the troops. Bush yet again vetoes funding for the troops. After yet another delay, it's "UhOh we need money for the troops ReallySoonNow" and congress makes a big production "Rushing" to push the exact same bill to fund the troops through the process again. Bush again vetoes funding for the troops. Now it's "Oh my god troop salaries have to be paid THIS WEEK" and Congressmen rush back in from all over the country for a special weekend Super Super EMERGENCY SESSION dedicated to the sole issue that the troops need to be paid immediately and they suspend all the usual Red-Tape procedural rules and in a single 8-hour session they slam through the exact same god-damn funding bill.
And then if Bush feels like it he can veto the bill. And then he can stand up there on the fucking Whitehouse lawn and explain why he refused to permit the soldiers to be paid. He can stand up there and explain how he is supporting and protecting the troops by denying them paychecks, he can explain how he is supporting the troops by denying them vital supplies. The US Army can grind to a screeching halt in total chaos and he can stand up there and explain how he's a hero for vetoing the Emergency Fund Our Troops Bill cutting off their money.
In general I consider the Democrats to be way better than the Republicans, but oh my god most Democrats are fucking incompetent cowering twits.
Bush can give all the speeches he likes, he can have his press secretary up there in press room day after day, yammering endlessly about how Democrats are Evil and how much they hate the troops and blaming congress and blaming Democrats yada yada yada... but at the end of the day the Constitutional division of Powers firmly hangs the noose around Bush's neck. At the end of the day Bush can let the bill go through and fund the troops, or Bush is the one standing there denying the troops paychecks and denying the troops supplies. He's the one standing there shutting everything off.
Bush is the Commander in Chief giving day-to-day orders to the military, but Congress is the one that gets to pass laws and supply money and how that money may be spent. Bush's power is and always has been to veto laws if he chooses... Bush power is and always has been to refuse to accept the money if he chooses... Bush's power is and always has been to refuse to pay the troops salaries if he chooses... Bush's power is and always has been to refuse to send needed supplies for the troops. Bush's power is and always has been to order the troops to strip down to their underwear and dance the Electric Boogaloo if he chooses.
I'm baffled (but sadly not too surprised) that Congress and the Democrats went all wussy and rolled over for Bush yet again. All they had to do was keep repassing the exact same god-damn bill to fund the troops and plant the noose firmly on Bush's neck.
-