WA Governor Race Ends 119
Republican Dino Rossi decided last night to not appeal yesterday's decision by Chelan judge John Bridges to let last November's governor election stand -- the closest in U.S. history -- which keeps Christine Gregoire, who won by 129 votes after two recounts, in office. The Republicans claimed that fraud and mistakes far exceeded the difference between the candidates, and that statistical analysis showed Rossi might have received more legal votes. Bridges concluded there were thousands of incorrect votes and other major problems, but that the Republicans didn't meet the high threshold of proof that the result was incorrect. He also said he feared current law will make elections problems even worse, and urged the government and voters to work to fix the system.
Here's an idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll get a bigger turnout, and possibly a true outcome.
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:3, Informative)
But the courts said "No Joy."
Bummer.
Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
What he was asking for was that the questionable results be set aside and the state be given a chance to have an honest election. (i.e. without King County's felons and dead voting)
That being said, I will abide by the rule of law and accept Gov. G. as our overlord for now. On the other hand I sure hope we can all work to prevent this from happening again.
Perhaps those of us in Island county can set the example since it seems we were one of the few places that seem to have a properly working election board.
Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow....all you need to do is replace 'Gore' and 'Gov. G' with 'Bush' and 'Rossi' with 'Gore', and you have exactly what Dems were saying after the 2000 election.
Funny how being on the other side of the issue can change your tune, isn't it?
Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (Score:2)
You have just motivated the Republican voters in Washington to the point you will never see that state go blue again.
Ha Ha yourself.
Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (Score:2)
Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (Score:2)
You seriously underestimate the ill will this will create. Washington is about to become the win-at-any-cost state for Republicans in the next cycle. Republicans are pissed enough to hold onto this for 3 years. Bank on it.
When Washington goes Red in 2008, you think of me.
Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (Score:2, Troll)
Yes, Bush has fraudulently won two elections while Gregoire has fraudulently won one election.
"Democracy" is a joke, at least in this country.
Why isn't Bush working to bring democracy here? Oh, that's right, if we could oust him by simple vote we would, and did.
But Bush knows well the maxim attributed to Stalin: It doesn't matter who they vote for, it matters who counts the votes.
Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (Score:2)
Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (Score:2)
As an independent, I welcome this change. Every Republican tactic suggests they do not. I wonder how many Red states there would be if/when the elections are fair. In fact, I wonder if the outcome of the last 2 PRESIDENTIAL elections would be the same. You think the reds in WA are pissed, I wonder if they are as pissed as every non-Republican in the country.
You wishing for a "fair" election reminds of the phrase "Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it."
I know this is not what you said - I wouldn't expect any Republican to wish for a fair election. It might reflect the true will of the people and illustrate just how out of touch you are. Then you would have to go through that whole wrestling with your world view being wrong, then justify changing to the new winning side. We know how Republicans hate to be wrong.
Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (Score:2)
Neither republicans nor democrats want fair elections. Notice that all their campaign reform laws make it harder for third parties (Eg: you can't spend money unless you money comes from a major party, and you can't get major party status unless you won one of the previous elections, etc.)
I think as long as voting has been going on in this country, political parties have been trying to manipulate the system to concentrate power for themselves-- they've been very successful.
Another example of this is gerrymandering... both parties do it, and they do it ruthlessly.
What we need is for the americans to wake up and realize that our elections are nowhere near close to being fair, objective, or accurate.
Re:Happy Island County Democrat here!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Joy Luck Club (Score:4, Informative)
You can try to spin this (repeated) Republican defeat in attempting to take office through a court. But it's obvious that Rossi was doing everything he could, even things he couldn't, to take the Governor's office, regardless of the merits, or the damage to Washington. Of course politicians do anything to win, but we don't have to like it.
Now that both sides have been hurt in their war over shoddy state election work, maybe there's a mutual interest in fixing the system. Continuing to fight the war after its over will only get in the way of that more important work.
Re:Joy Luck Club (Score:2)
The good news for Republican's is that Gregoire ("that bitch") knows she's Governor of a divided state, and she'll lead accordingly, respecting both sides of the issues. Rossi, being a Repubican, would have lead like Bush, as if he had a "mandate" to do as he damn well pleased. Look at the Repubican's recent actions, locally and nationally, and you'll see a group of people to truely believe that Democracy is all about "majority rules" and has nothing to do with "minority rights". Hell, you see this pattern with Republicans going back to the Nixon days, maybe before (I frankly wasn't paying much attention before Nixon).
Re:Joy Luck Club (Score:2)
I find it interesting that the above was moderated 4 informative.
But the fact is, there is no evidence of fraud on the Rossi campaign-- the votes were counted and he won.
The votes were counted again, and he won.
Then the democrats made sure the votes were counted a third time-- but this time they used a different methodology, and amazingly, discovered thousands of new ballots! The vote counts went way up between the 2 "recount" and the third "recount" (making them really new counts.)
Finally after adding thousands of "Found" ballots, the democrats won.
That's the fraud- -the democrats threw the election.
King county is heavily democratic and those doing the counting were supervised by democrats.
When someone alleged fraud and makes a lot of disparaging comments and then gets modded up like this, its clear to me that the mods are moding based on their political opinion, not the quality of the post.
In the hope of escaping this biased moderation, let me point out that I think the republicans engaged in election fraud to get Bush re-elected, and that is an even bigger scandal, or should be. But in Washington, the repubs didn't have the power, and didn't cheat... the democrats did.
Re:Joy Luck Club (Score:3, Informative)
Fraud.
And the coverup is sick. We do not live in a democracy anymore, because the vote counters are controlled by the local party in league with the vote counting corporation. That merger of state and corporate power is called "fascism" (Mussolini). Nationally, 80% of the votes are counted by 3 corporations, owned by Republicans, who even commit in public to delivering their local Electoral College ballots for their candidate.
Re:Joy Luck Club (Score:2)
Your sig is very appropriate to this thread.
Soap, Ballot and Jury are apparently quite out. The supreme court ruled that the constitution was irrelevant in the california medial marijuana case, elections are obviously dishonest, with people just arguing over who it was that cheated the most.
Is civil war the only thing that is left?
I think 40 years of soviet style tyranny may happen before civil war occurs.
Re:Joy Luck Club (Score:2)
Re:Joy Luck Club (Score:3, Informative)
So it is *you* who is lying, through the standard Republican "plausible deniability" tactic of willful ignorance. Everyone familiar with this ballot story knows about Councilman Larry Phillips' discovery, if they want to know any of the facts. But you obviously don't - as I have proven here. So it's no surprise that your Republican liar package comes complete with your baseless accusation of me, projecting exactly your own major malfunction onto me. Have fun with Gregoire: in 4 years, you'll have another chance to steal an election from the majority, and lie about it all you want. After all, it'll be all their fault, right?
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
Definition of close (Score:2, Interesting)
Currently, Washington State does have a method whereby close elections are handled without long, drawn-out challenges. The legislature can refuse to accept any result with a majority vote. If there was any candidate for the legislature to exercise this power, the governor's race of 2004 was it. It was too close and there were too many weird things happening. It was a Democrat controlled legislature and they refused to accept responsibility, instead telling the courts to fix it. The courts made the right decision and explained that the remedy that should be applied can't be applied because they are bound by the law as it is written. The voters are going to have to have the final say on whether the legislators made the right decision or not.
Re:Definition of close (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Definition of close (Score:2)
Show me someone who thinks the initiation of force is immoral, and I will say "long live..." about them.
But all these groups want to use violence to force people to give to "charity", follow a particular religion, even fund wars between these groups.
And that is immoral.
Unfortunately, most posters to slashdot, I think, are socialists who think capitalism is evil, and so I generally get modded down a lot.
Re:Definition of close (Score:2)
The republicans, who follow a generally conservative bent, are supposed to be (although with Bush it's not clear) for smaller, less-intrusive, government. Distribution of control to the local level, not the federal. Personal responsibility and unlimited opportunity. And most of all, a free and unfettered capitalist marketplace. We also believe in a strong national defense against outside forces. We believe in keeping our country safe.
On the other hand, a small group of Muslim terrorists, upset about the fact that the U.S. has become the world's policeman and happens *not* to want to see Israel wiped from the face of the Earth, has decided that the best way to strike us is to engage in cowardly, unprovoked attacks on our unarmed citizens. They would like to kill as many of them as possible, but fear a frontal confrontation because that would reveal them as a small minority that cannot maintain their power if faced with the majority. So they strike from the darkness with fervor and whatever weapons can be improvised and stolen.
If they had a weapon of mass destruction, they would use it. Immediately. On a civilian target, not a military one.
So, the conservative viewpoint is this case is simple. We cannot wait for such an attack, because our people will die. We cannot negotiate with these terrorists because, a) they're fanatical and won't negotiate with us, and b) they represent tyranical minorities who do not represent their people. This pretty much leaves four options. One - throw them into a cage that they can't get out of -- but such a thing doesn't exist, two -- give them what they want and hope they go away (the Saudi Arabian method), three -- convert to a police state to prevent anyone from sneaking in or out or doing anything bad (some people will point at the Patriot Act, but the fact those people aren't currently in "dissident prison" shows that it's not *that* all-encompassing), or four - kill the terrorists before they kill you.
In this case, we didn't initiate the violence, 19 Muslim terroists did that by hijacking 4 planes and killing 3000 people.
As for your statement that they all use violence to enforce charity, well, conservatives are against most taxation, could care less about your religion (yeah, really, we don't want you all to be bible-thumpers), and only want war as a last resort, although we won't compromise our core principles to stay out of a war (think Neville Chamberlain vs. Winston Churchill).
I will agree that the level of socialists/socialism on SlashDot is somewhat frightening, as I can't imagine a worse system of government and economy shy of the extreme socialist view (i.e. Communism or National Socialism).
Re:Definition of close (Score:3, Insightful)
Germany's invasion of poland was an attempt to combat terrorism. Poland was a clear and present danger to germany.
Government's always have a good excuse... but if you look at their actions you can see the truth. If Republicans wanted to protect the country from a diffuse threat like terrorism, they would support a diffuse defense, like private ownership of guns.
But they have taken the anti-gun position, with Bush calling for renewal of the AWB, etc.
After 9/11 Bush took no action to restore gun rights, but lots of action to make it harder on gun owners, and everyone else who might want to fly.
9/11 is an excuse, like the reichstag fire.
"convert or die" also a main theme of later Islam (Score:1, Offtopic)
as to the other allusion please read this Godwin's Law FAQ [faqs.org]
Re:"convert or die" also a main theme of later Isl (Score:1, Troll)
Godwins law? I'm amazed you deny the holocaust. Its well documented. But you must because you believe that it never happened and thus any reference to it is a reference to fiction.
But the fact is it did happen, and there are reasons it happened, and as they say "those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it".
Godwins law was meant for people who had no argument and were just calling people names. But it is invoked by those who have no counter argument-- ironically-- to call those who do names.
Re:"convert or die" also a main theme of later Isl (Score:2)
As to saying I was denying the holocaust or some such drivel You must be a loon. You alluded to nazis not me. Neither do I nor does the FAQ defend them. And as far as I am concerned you invoked Godwin's law, and I see no reason to argue with an unbalanced mind. However I cannot let such an accusation go un-challenged. However will ignore you in the future.
as the author points out in;
'3. Author's Note on the Holocaust Over the years, I have received several emails regarding this FAQ regarding the Holocaust itself, either disputing the holocaust or the numbers listed in this FAQ. I'd just like to make it clear that I don't have any particular desire to debate these points; this FAQ is meant to point out and explain a quirk of human nature, not to codify the history of World War II. '
Re:"convert or die" also a main theme of later Isl (Score:2, Troll)
You say you don't deny the holocaust, but you would say that a holocaust survivor talking abou the parallels between nazi germany and america is violating goodwins law, and is therefore a "loon".
Godwins law is based on the premise that it can't happen here. It is this kind of denial that lets it happen. What do you think the people who lived thru germany
Today, on Lew Rockwell.com I found the following:
Those were the magic words of the time: "Papiere Bitte. (Translation: "Papers, Please.") Hearing those words, even now, causes dull echoes of sounds akin to bodies hitting dirt, or bullets penetrating flesh to thud into my mind. Because, if those papers weren't correctly in order, or, if you were a Jew sneakily present in any place (including the grocery store) which displayed the usual "NO JEWS OR DOGS ALLOWED" sign, you were dead meat - literally. And, yes, of course I'm talking about my childhood as a little Jewish kid in Nazi Germany.
No one ever forgets stench. Whether it is a long-forgotten encounter with a ripe skunk, or a ripe egg, or a ripe decomposing body, once one of those odors has been brain-documented, then even the slightest tinge of such an aroma pops back up immediately, along with the circumstances under which it first offended the nostrils.
And, that's what's happening now. I smell the long-forgotten skunk, the long-forgotten rot of fascism. What is happening all around can no longer be denied. What I ran away from so desperately in 1938 is coming back full circle. Only the jack-boots have not yet arrived.
America quite literally saved my life. The love and gratitude deep in my heart for this country will never go away. But I'm scared now. Haunted by deep fear for the generations to come, who may wind up as I did - looking over their shoulders, scurrying for cover, mute with terror. And it hurts.
Think I'm some kind of elderly nut-job neurotically manufacturing dictatorship? Well, let's look at the 82 billion dollar defense bill passed just a few weeks ago, which (with a vote tally of 100 to 0) had the Real ID Act hidden inside it. This law allows a national identification process in which each and every person in the U.S.A. will be on computer.
This ID will be based on driver's license applications, although it isn't just for driving. Just like the infamous "Internal Passport" of Nazi Germany, no one will need it unless needing to fly, cash checks, apply for jobs, walk the streets, enter federal buildings - or drive. As stated in Time magazine on May 15, 2005, "If you are a wealthy recluse with liquid assets, it doesn't concern you." Everyone else better watch out! Well, maybe that wealthy recluse had better watch out also. After all, he/she might be of a forbidden religion, or of suspicious racial origin.
Legal "ID Theft" and legal "illegal surveillance"? The Real ID Act links driver's licenses of all states, creating a data base including the private details of every single U.S. citizen. It mandates that your driver's license share a common machine-readable digital photo of you, all the better to track your every movement. It hands the federal government unfunded mandate power to dictate what data all states must collect for license holders, including everything from fingerprints to retinal scans. And, if you don't drive, you'll still need to submit to the national ID card. How else, after all, will the cop who doesn't like the shape of your face, or the fact that you are (God Forbid) wearing a turban get to arrest you? Yes, "Papiere Bitte" has come home to roost.
And, folks, that's only the beginning. More technically sophisticated techniques will be implemented as they occur. If the Nazis had had electronic surveillance, phone bugging and all else that the Patriot Act not only condones but advises, there would have been an even tighter grip on the populace.
After all, the Patriot Act is modeled directly after Gestapo methods: Those 3:00 AM home intrusions - without warrant or reason for arrest - will get
yep, still a loonie. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"convert or die" also a main theme of later Isl (Score:2)
Follow the Constitution (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Follow the Constitution (Score:2)
That being said, while I'm a big fan of Rossi, I think that the Republican challenge was pretty weak. When you have to rely on stats to make a decision then the choice is pretty clear - do nothing. The judge did the right thing here. He told our citizens that we'd better clean up this mess ourselves. In King County where I live, that means throwing out Dean Logan, the appointed county elections director. Since his boss doesn't think that this is necessary [metrokc.gov], it's time to remove Ron Sims as well.
Re:Follow the Constitution (Score:2)
No, they had to rely on stats because the Judge told them that was the only way they could try to make their case.
Since the ballots are secret, they can't tie the ballots to the voters. So they can't say definitively whether the manufactured and illegal votes were for gregoire or rossi.
But a little thinking will make it obvious-- in fact, the judge in his summary talked about incidence of fraud (my word) covering what I think was as many as 10,000 ballots.
Its clear from this trial that wholesale fraud occured.
The problem is, that they can't prove that the fraud was for gregoire, even though it was obvious: Every time they recounted, the king county election workers "Found" a bunch of new gregoire ballots. Often many hundreds of them at a time.
This is a stolen election. Its a small picture of the election stealing that went on nationwide to get bush into office. (Does anyone really believe that all the counties in florida voted the exact opposite of their party affiliciations? EG: %70 democratic counties went exactly %70 republican, while %70 republican counties also went %70 republican?)
Election fraud is part of the strategy. IT is flagrant, it is proven many times, and it is ignored by the mainstream media. Since both parties engage in it, neither party wants to do anything about it.
And this means our democractic "checks and balances" is no longer effective (if it ever was.)
No evidence of fraud (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No evidence of fraud (Score:2)
Not true. I listened to him read much of his ruling, and he found, as findings of fact, that ballots were added, and many other discrepencies.
He didn't call them fraud because he wasn't ruling on the intent of them--- but when more ballots are cast than there are registered voters, that's pretty clearly proof of fraud.
LIES (Score:5, Informative)
-
[Judge] Bridges said there was no evidence to suggest fraud, intentional misconduct or any attempt to manipulate the election. He said election officials "attempted to perform their responsibilities in a fair and impartial manner."
... clear and convincing evidence that improper conduct or irregularity procured Ms. Gregoire's election," the judge said.
Now please stop spreading your lies.While he had stern words about how King County ran the election, Bridges said that even there, Republicans failed to show any intentional wrongdoing.
"While there is evidence of irregularities, as there appears to be in every election based on the testimony of various county election officials, there is no
Re:Follow the Constitution (Score:2)
Actually, the judge was very skeptical about this. He basically said "I'll let you try to convince me, but the burden of proof is very high". I think that the judge did this only because he wanted to allow the Republicans the air time to make their case. We all know what would happen if we relied on stats to determine elections.
Since both parties engage in it, neither party wants to do anything about it.
So vote for a third party candidate then.
Since the ballots are secret...
So let's get rid of the secret ballot. I guess I've never understood why this is necessary.
it is proven many times
Proven by whom? It seems to me that even this judge said that hard evidence was not available.
manufactured ... votes
You have proof of this, or do you just suspect that this was the case?
For as much as I wanted to see Dino win, we have to abide by the law. If you don't think that it's working then do something about it other than complain.
Re:Follow the Constitution (Score:2)
Re:Follow the Constitution (Score:1, Troll)
What, by the way, would you suggest I do about it besides complain? Change who I vote for?
Do you see the irony in voting to try and change the fact that the voting system is rigged?
By definition, if they are counting more ballots than there were voters, there was fraud.
Re:Follow the Constitution (Score:1)
How about any or all of the following:
Re:Follow the Constitution (Score:2)
All of those suggestions are based on the assumption that the election is conducted in a valid manner, except the last one.
As for the last one, the fraud in our election system has been printed in newspapers and blogs across the country, and has been backed up with hard evidence regularly.
I'm complaining in the hope that some people will actually wake up and stop living in the fantasy land idea of what this country is that their government sells them.
As for me, I have retirement plans in place. The US will not be getting my tax dollars for too much longer.
I'm voting in the most effective way-- with my feet.
Re:Follow the Constitution (Score:1)
I hope that you'll choose to stick it out for a while. There really are a lot of great people in this country. You'll only be losing out if you choose to leave.
Re:Follow the Constitution (Score:2, Insightful)
He picked his court venue based on the politics of the court, which leaned Republican.
Re:Follow the Constitution (Score:2)
The idea that the legislature is the only proper channel is false, and is not supported by the state's constitution.
If the courts didn't have authority to rule on matters of law, according to the constitution, then there would be no use for courts at all.
The constitution gives them this authority.
I've a much better idea (Score:2)
What if you get the same outcome? (Score:2)
Another possibility is to extend the same law that many jurisdictions have for dealing with actual tie votes, that is to decide the election by chance, usually by flipping a coin. The difficulty with this approach (and in general with having a revote) is that whether you are discovering whether the threshold has been achieved or simply trying to decide a winner, the process of qualifying votes is the same. For instance, if you define it as being within 100 votes statewide, well then you still have to count votes to know if the difference is under the threshold, and then you are back to fighting over what is a valid vote, whether to count miscast provisional ballots, etc, etc.
A recount is more sensible, if it can be done in a uniform and fair manner, which unfortunately did not seem to be the case in Washington. If the laws were more clear about how what types of votes were valid, a recount could be performed at a much lower cost than holding a new election.
Vote again and again (Score:1)
What this means is that in order to win, one of the candidates will have to do something to gain the support of people who wouldn't normally support him. If they can't do this, then they obviously can't lead the entire group.
A "Dark Horse" candidate is a third party candidate that represents the smallest minority of three. However, sometimes the group may compromise by elected the Dark Horse rather than one of the two leading candidates in the event none of them can get the support they need. In the Washington election, that would be the equivalent of a large group of republicans and democrats backing Ruth Bennet, the libertarian candidate, because it is a good compromise and will probably represent all three groups better than any of the other candidates could.
If they can't decide on a candidate, and a majority can't be united behind one, then the position remains empty. In this case, that would be the equivalent of having the Lt. Governor step up and become governor until one can be chosen. This isn't a bad alternative because the Lt. Governor actually won a majority and is supported by both Democrats and Republicans. (He's a Lieberman-type democrat.)
If you think carefully, this is actually a good way to handle it. Rather than have a controversial and divisive leader, have one that is less controversial and more uniting.
Re:Vote again and again (Score:2)
Yes, that is a superior solution.
And you recognize one of the inherent problems with democracy-- by definition, the minority is not represented.
Some would argue that even if that minority is %1, the majority doesn't have a right to initiate force against it... or put another way, that a just country would have a very limited government such that you wouldn't have the "tyranny of the majority".
Looking at the last two presidents we've had in office, its clear that we have tyranny of the majority here.
I say politicians should be replaced with proxies-- real representatives.
IF you show up in congress, and your constituants are %70 opposed to a given bill, then your vote is split 70/30. And if someone no longer represents your positions, you should be able to change your proxy at any time--- no need for elections. Let the members be anyone who has proxy documents for %1 of the population or more.
Do it electronically, so that if the bum violates his mandate, he can be thrown out as people shift their allegience to other politicans.
I don't care if this makes the life of a politican more difficult-- it should be-- they are wasting our lives by extracting our lives out in the form of taxes to spend for thier pet projects, often at our own detriment.
They should be held accountable.
Thus, democracy-- any election-- is a violation of the minorities rights, if the elected person does something they disagree with.
Otherwise, its "Three wolves and a sheep voting to see what to have for dinner".
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:2)
2) unless the relevant law has this an an option, this is not an option. I realize that this sounds redundant, but it's true and important to keep in mind.
Ultimately, when a vote is this close, half the people want whatever makes candidate A win, and half want whatever makes candidate B win. They don't seem to care how this win happens, they just want the win. So invariably the losing candidate will push for a revote, recount, disqualifying votes -- anything that has a non-negligable change of making them the winner. And once they're the winner, they push for everything to stay the same.
We've seen this happen time and time again when the elections are close, with both parties being on both sides of the argument, often even switching sides in the middle (as happened here.)
When things are this close, the only absolute is the law that governs the entire election. If it doesn't allow a recount, there's no way you can have a recount, unless a large majority agrees, and if a large majority agreed, there'd be no need for a recount.
Ultimately, if we want get rid of all the fraud and inaccuracies that keep showing up in voting, we need to get rid of the anonymous vote. If there is a record of who voted how somewhere, then individual voters could somehow verify that their vote was counted correctly and not altered, and the election officials could correctly disqualify votes later that are found to not be valid.
I realize that we are not likely to give up anonymous voting any time soon, but it would be the best way to fix the problem. Vote counting would become sort of like accounting, easy to audit, even down to the exact vote. etc. We could have exact, accurate figures. But it's not likely to ever happen, as there's always going to be a side, with approximately 50% of the vote, pushing for the status quo ...
Short of non anonymous voting, electronic voting needs to at least have a paper trail, one that cannot be easily altered, and can be easily inspected by the voter to make sure that his vote was counted correctly before being put into the locked box ...
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:2)
That's what I meant. Make a law.
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:2)
actually recounts, not revotes (Score:2)
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:2)
Easy. Right now, people start freaking out and whomever is on the losing end starts crying shenanigans whenever the vote is like 50.5%/49.5% or so. (Ok, the exact cutoff point may not be quite right, but it's a gradual process -- the closer it is, the more the losing side screams that it's wrong and the more the winning side screams that it's right.)
Adding a recount if the vote is too close merely shifts the possiblities for these fiascos. Suppose the law says that there will be (it must be absolute -- it can't be a maybe thing) a revote if the vote is within 0.5%. Fine. Suppose it turns out to be within 0.51%. The losing side will be saying `it's too close to requiring a revote! Recount! Recount!' until they get their revote. The winning side will be saying `no! it's not close enough! No revote! And besides, we won!' (Which they did.)
And why would you do a revote anyways? The only valid reason for a revote that I can see is if 1) proven vote fraud, fraud that actually affected the results of the election, and fraud that can be eliminated if we can vote again, and 2) an exact tie (i.e. everybody got exactly the same number of votes.) If neither of those conditions are true, then somebody has won by getting more votes than the other guy, and why should he be denied his victory just because it's close?
If a basketball game is 112-111, do they play the game over just because it's close? No. Do they put an asterix next to the winner's name because they barely won? No. (Of course, the score on a professional ball game can be carefully audited ...)
..outlaws (Score:1)
So What? (Score:3, Insightful)
I predict that some people will try to mod me down to suppress the truth, but they will fail.
More information:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ [blackboxvoting.org]
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.h
Re:So What? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Then repost it, but for gods sakes, do any of the rest of us give a rat's turd about your fucking persecution complex? I may even agree with some of your points, but if I had mod points, I'd still stuff your whiny ass into the earth's fucking core.
This goes for all the "I'll probably get modded down for this" fucknuts out there as well.
Re:So What? (Score:2)
So why didn't you start out with this line instead? Or better yet, leave off the "GW Bush" and just say "meddled in our presidential elections" and then provide some proof to go along with your accusations. A sure way to get modded a troll is to bring up President Bush. You might not like him, but get over it. The 2008 election is well under way, and you're pissing and moaning about something that happened five years ago? And by the way, if you think that the system is so broken, what have *you* personally done to fix it? Griping on /. doesn't count.
I'll give you this much - at least you're willing to identify yourself. I'm getting tired of all the Anonymous Coward /. posts. There's too much guerilla warfare happening around here, especially when it comes to politics. Everyone should be required to log in, and the number of anonymous posts should be strictly limited.
Re:So What? (Score:2)
Um... the e-voting scandal was less than a 1/2 year ago.
Watch the video - http://votergate.tv/ [votergate.tv]
Re:So What? (Score:2)
Give me a break. Anytime anybody uses the term "gate" in something political like VoterGate, it's meant to invoke memories of Watergate. The sad fact is that Watergate was truly an American tragedy. Richard Nixon was a sitting President who abused the power of his office to win an election. He was an amazing individual who let the power go to his head and destroyed an otherwise great career.
VoterGate is nonsense, although I really like their "Take Action [votergate.tv]" section minus the paper ballot comment and the link to BlackBoxVoting.org. There's a lot of really useful stuff there. Perhaps if you took the time to observe an election then you'd feel better about its outcome. Better yet, lobby to get rid of the secret election so that people can directly challenge the results if they find that their vote was incorrectly counted.
Re:So What? (Score:2)
But then I realized you are either a troll or have a big "W" sticker on the back of your full-size 7MPG SUV - either way it's a waste of time.
If you really believe that the useless "news" sources that you mentioned would publicize something like this instead of Janet's breast or her brother's perversion, you really need to read http://opensecrets.org/ [opensecrets.org] for a while and learn where the money comes from, and where it goes.
I suppose you also think that Bush supports our troops, eh?
That's why they have to armor their vehicles with scrap metal they scavenge and steal, and their family members have to buy army/navy surplus flac-jackets for 'em, and why their pay AND their family's benefits got cut so horribly, etc.
Where's the news publication of that?
Where's the news publication of Bush giving a $90 Billion tax break to the super-rich?
Oh, sorry... this time around it's another $109 Billion (that's a "B", not an "M").
The media you mentioned is beyond useless for anything of this sort... especially Space.com - WTF?
Keep your head in the sand... it'll never effect YOU... really.
Re:So What? (Score:1)
Actually, it's a "Support our Troops" sticker on the back of my full-size, 7MPG Dodge Pickup truck. I also watch NASCAR and defend the right to bear arms.
You obviously have NO sense of humor
I suppose you also think that Bush supports our troops, eh? ... Where's the news publication of that?
I think that it was buried somewhere underneath the story of local mothers showing up at military recruiting centers saying "Not my kid" when the recruiters are just trying to do their job.
I find it interesting that you try to paint anyone who doesn't buy into your view of the world as being a troll. But that just ain't the case in most circumstances. Yes, I like George Bush (x2), but I also have a measure of admiration for Bill Clinton. He certainly had more fiscal discipline that either of the Bushes. I really liked Jimmy Carter, even though his policies promoted high levels of inflation. (To his defense, he inherited some of this from Nixon/Ford.) What made Carter a great President wasn't his policies, but rather his ability to stand up for what he thought was right regardless of the pressure. I have to respect a man who follows his heart and not the latest poll numbers.
I'd encourage you to think of one thing that you like about our current President. And not some backhanded comment like "He doesn't clip his toenails in public". Make it something substantive. If you can't think of a single thing that you like about him then I'd suggest that you're not looking at the situation realistically. If you can then maybe you can find some common ground on which to build an open dialog.
Re:So What? (Score:2)
Let's see:
- He signs any bill that comes before him, especially if it stomps on the Bill of Rights (or any part of the Constitution, for that matter) and benefits huge corporations
- He is the first president in our history to START a war and invade another country... a war that's undefined so there can be no "win" or "lose" or even "end"
- He supports the super-rich at the expense of the entire remaining population (3 TIMES the money spent on the "war on terror" was given to the super-rich the first time, this time it's $109B, $19B more)
- He supports corporate conglomerates above all else
- He took the first government surplus we've seen in many decades and, in a single term, turned it into the biggest deficit we've ever seen
- He has driven the US Dollar into the ground, our exchange rate is horrid now
- He uses religion as a weapon, and chastises those of other religions who do the same, labeling anyone who doesn't follow his exact sect as "evil" (hint: freedom of religion means ANY religion)
- His policies have made our great country into something the entire world despises (thankfully, many understand that it's our current administration, and not all of us)
- He has absolutely no respect whatsoever of the American people (I'm sure you've seen the video clip where he flips-off the camera and says "that's my one-finger victory salute")
- He manipulates his conferences (by extreme screening of all attendants) to the point where they're nothing more than an ass-kissing session, downright humiliating to our official values (have you seen the video where someone asked a question that wasn't approved, and was arrested? This is when he was only a Governor!)
- He speaks with a cheesey western accent when he was born and raised in new-england (just to be seen as a good-ole-boy)... haven't you ever noticed he's the only one in his family that sounds like that?
- He has ruined every business venture he has started, even with his daddy's funding (how can someone incapable of running a business run a country?)
Sorry, but maybe you can help me out here - just what is it that you find likable about him?
Maybe the fact that he knows how to get away with military desertion? (I have no respect for that)
As far as Clinton goes... he did a few things I despised, like giving Groom Lake total exemption to EPA regulations, the fiasco with the powerplants in California (created by emissions loopholes), etc.
Having said that - in general, I believe Clinton was probably the best president we've had in my lifetime. He eliminated the deficit, our foreign relations were phenomenal, our economy was the best I've ever seen, etc.
It's amazing how quickly and how drastically two presidents can change our country. One for far better, one for (by far) the worst
By the way, even NPR has talked about how we are heading into an irreversible aristocracy, and how we have the biggest separation of classes that we've had since immediately before the great depression. When less than 0.1% of the nation holds the vast majority of the money (what was the number? 70%? 80%?), it becomes entirely unsustainable.
Also look at Europe... they are working towards a common constitution. Once they sign this, we will no longer be the military or finanical superpower of the world, we will be a distant second in both.
Do you really think that pissing off the entire world is a good idea under these circumstances?
Speaking of Europe, notice we have almost no tourism here from Europe recently? With the exchange rate as bad (for us) as it is, vacationing here is an absolute bargain! They're avoiding us as the thought of coming here turns their stomaches! This is a very sad state for us to be in.
Re:So What? (Score:2)
I can come up with two things I like about our president:
- He hasn't acted on his stated intention to ban more types of firearms, and renew the assault weapons ban.
- He hasn't let his warmongering get to the point that he's nuked anyone yet.
That said, he's still giving Lincoln a run for the money as worst president ever.
I hated Clinton, until Bush came around and showed me what real fiscal irresponsibility was. These guys and Bush's dad make Reagan look great by comparsion... (And reagan's only problem was fiscal irresponsibility and a fetish for persecuting fags.)
Re:So What? (Score:1)
I'd suggest you check your facts a little closer before posting them. The EU Constitution is in big trouble after being recently rejected by both the French and Dutch. The Germans are talking about dumping the Euro and moving back to the Mark. There are huge struggles with religion in Europe as well. You might not like the US, but I'm not sure that Europe is exactly as great as you'd like to think it is.
If you want to pick on the Bush policies then you're welcomed to do that. But when you pick on the man himself ("cheesey western accent") then you're just proving that you're hatred isn't for the policies but for the man. By doing this you join the likes of Rush Limbaugh who use attempt to use humiliation to make themselves look better. Put your facts on the table and let them speak for themselves, otherwise people will stop listening to your arguments.
Re:So What? (Score:2)
As far as the EU thing goes, I am well aware that the French rejected it and multiple countries to the north (not just the Dutch) were waiting for France's response before making their decision. This does not mean it's not going to happen - it only means that they're working to alter it to make everyone happy (rather than our current administration's method of making the power-hungry happy).
Well, so far... even a Bush supporter as yourself has only come up with "he's been married for all these years" as a reason to like him.
Sorry, but that's absolutely ridiculous!
I know lots of people I like that have been divorced, and I know people I don't like who are married... how in the world does that have anything to do with how well this person can run our country?
You chastise me for making a "personal" comment about the front he puts forward, then you bring up something FAR MORE personal as a reason to like him?
You're sounding like a troll again.
Oh, and I never said I didn't like the U.S. - in fact I said quite the opposite. (this is typical of Bush supporters I've spoken with - they equate dislike of the war or the current administration to dislike of the country)
This is/was a very great country... I just hope we can survive the current administration.
Re:So What? (Score:1)
Sorry I didn't get it. It followed a long list of complaints, so I took it seriously. Does that mean that the rest of the stuff was a joke too? ;-)
EU thing... This does not mean it's not going to happen
Care to make it interesting? I'd be willing to wager a gentleman's bet that it won't happen. The whole of the EU has 2 years to ratify the constitution from October 29, 2004. So they've got a little over a year to get things fixed. According to an article on Yahoo [yahoo.com], all 25 nations have to accept the new constitution and it "cannot be renegotiated".
Well, so far... even a Bush supporter as yourself has only come up with "he's been married for all these years" as a reason to like him. Sorry, but that's absolutely ridiculous!
Oh, I can think of lots of reasons to like him. I was looking for just one thing that you might agree with. I'd love to hear you say "I like President Bush because..." Is that really so hard to do?
You chastise me for making a "personal" comment about the front he puts forward, then you bring up something FAR MORE personal as a reason to like him? You're sounding like a troll again.
I'm a troll for trying to find something nice about someone? You might find this hard to believe, but I was *really* pissed off by my Republican friends when they started to attack Bill Clinton on his character. While I believed that Clinton committed a crime by lying under oath in a civil deposition, I didn't think that it was appropriate to vilify him personally as some were prone to do. If people had tried to look for something good in him then maybe they'd have been a little less critical of him. Yes, he can be a big screw-up at times, but I don't think that he's the demon that some would have you believe he is.
Oh, and I never said I didn't like the U.S. - in fact I said quite the opposite
Um, where? I reread all of your previous posts and didn't see a single pro-US statement. Did I miss something? I figured with all the complaining that you were ready to bail. That's the way most of these threads go - "I hate the US and I'm leaving [slashdot.org]". My apologies for assuming that you fell into this group.
Re:So What? (Score:2)
Well, so far the only positive thing you've said about him is that he's married. I had a similar conversation with the one Bush supporter at work, and all he could come up with is "he's a christian" (as if no member of any other party can be called a christian!). All another person I know could come up with is "he has values". My response to that was "what values?!"... he couldn't give a single example.
I have to wonder if most republicans are only defending him because he's a member of the republican party. Seems to me that he displays the opposite of what being a republican used to stand for - so the whole situation has me baffled.
OK, so you're looking for me to come up with something I like about someone (personally, not professionally) whom I've never met. Sorry, but based on what I've seen of him in action, he's not the kind of person I'd tolerate being around, much less "like". Like most geeks, I despise phoney people, it's about my only pet-peeve.
If you actually are trying to get me to admit to liking something about him on a professional basis, I've already given you plenty of answers.
I can't think of a single decision he's made that I agree with.
This is why I asked if you could give me an example of what you like about him (to see if it's something I might not have thought of), and your example was about as personal and unrelated to his profession as you could get.
I'm a troll for trying to find something nice about someone?
Re-read the line you quoted.
Um, where? I reread all of your previous posts and didn't see a single pro-US statement. Did I miss something?
The exact phrase was: "our great country [slashdot.org]"
Sorry if it was too subtle.
Note that everything I said was in reference to Bush and his administration - not to USA.
Re:So What? (Score:1)
So you want some specific about the President that I like? Let me pick a big one - his constant articulation of the ideal that everyone should live in freedom. If you don't like the Iraq war then that's just fine by me, but does then mean that you think that it's perfectly fine for people to live in fear of their government and their lives? Can you agree with Bush that Saddam Hussein was a tryant? I'm not looking for you to say that you thought that he had to be removed from power, but can't we at least agree that it's a really bad thing when hundreds or thousands of people are getting killed on a regular basis by their government? If we can agree on this then we can at least start looking for a solution to the problem.
It seems to me that by saying that you can't find one good thing about Bush then what you're really saying is that you believe in the exact opposite of what he does. You believe in government sanctioned torture. You do not believe in freedom of worship. You believe that the US is a terrible country. This would be the exact opposite of what George Bush says he believes in. I really don't believe that's what you intend.
I suspect that deep down, you and George Bush have a lot in common. Really! You both value our country (in different ways) and you both believe in the cause of freedom (but believe there are different ways to achieve the goal). At least if you can admit that much then there's a starting point for a conversation.
For what it's worth, here's how I feel about Bush and his policies:
Re:So What? (Score:2)
I didn't make that up... I really never have met him.
You also have a passion for politics.
Actually, I despise politics... I'm just a passionate person in general. When politics get as bad as they have in the last 4.5 years, I get a bit worked up. Prior to that I was just disgusted - I didn't even vote because I didn't believe in voting _against_ someone, only _for_ someone I believed in (and no-one fit that description). Bush changed that. I actually wanted to vote for someone else during the last election, simply because I believed in him, but I ended up voting for John Kerry due to the fact that he had the strongest chance of beating Bush and I wanted to help that cause (beating Bush).
So you want some specific about the President that I like? Let me pick a big one - his constant articulation of the ideal that everyone should live in freedom.
OK, this is a big example of why I _don't_ like Bush. He gives these speeches that are obviously written by someone else (he doesn't have the needed language skills), but his ACTIONS show he believes in quite the opposite! I'm sure you've heard of Bush's War on the Bill of Rights. Bush believes that Corporations, not people, should have all of the rights and power.
If you don't like the Iraq war then that's just fine by me, but does then mean that you think that it's perfectly fine for people to live in fear of their government and their lives? Can you agree with Bush that Saddam Hussein was a tryant? I'm not looking for you to say that you thought that he had to be removed from power, but can't we at least agree that it's a really bad thing when hundreds or thousands of people are getting killed on a regular basis by their government? If we can agree on this then we can at least start looking for a solution to the problem.
This is another excuse I've heard more times than I can count. Why _Iraq_ and NOT the dozens of other countries in the world that are going through the same sort of thing?
Yes, I agree completely that Saddam is a horrible person, and his reign was one of terror, but that doesn't mean we should go bomb the crap out of their entire country and torture and murder prisoners. The connection? The camps were run very smoothly until the infamous person running Guantanamo was moved over there to do the same things he made it famous for.
It seems to me that by saying that you can't find one good thing about Bush then what you're really saying is that you believe in the exact opposite of what he does.
As I stated above, what Bush says he believes in, and what he DOES are two very different things.
Don't judge someone by what they say, judge them by their actions.
You believe in government sanctioned torture.
No, I believe in the Bill of Rights - something the Bush administration abhors.
BUSH believes in government sanctioned torture. If he didn't, it would not have gotten as bad as it did, and the people who were responsible would be in prison instead of just a clerk who happened to get her picture taken.
You do not believe in freedom of worship.
I believe in freedom of religion, as well as freedom FROM religion.
I believe you have the right to worship, but you do NOT have the right to force others to, nor do you have the right to choose their religion.
This country was founded by people trying to ESCAPE government enforced religion.
You believe that the US is a terrible country.
Not at all.
I believe this is a great country because of its foundations - specifically our constitution and its amendments. Something Bush and his administration show total disregard for.
This would be the exact opposite of what George Bush says he believes in. I really don't believe that's what you intend.
Again, don't judge him by what he SAYS, judge him by what he DOES.
For what it's worth, here's how I
Re:So What? (Score:1)
Even if you think that Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections, you'd still have to admit that nearly 1/2 of the country feels strongly enough about the guy to vote in favor of him and his policies (or vote against Gore/Kerry). Assuming that no one voted under duress, doesn't that say something about how our society feels about these issues?
I've come to the conclusion that a lot of what you're seeing when it comes to Christians asserting themselves in politics is a reaction to the political situation they have found themselves in over the last 50 years. We lost on school prayer and abortion, and now we're losing on posting the Ten Commandments and the marriage issue. In King County, WA, where I live, the county has passed an ordinance banning buildings over 10,000 square feet in rural areas unless they are run by the county. This clearly impacts our ability to build and run churches. I'm generally not paranoid when it comes to rulemaking, but you have to admit that there's something fishy about this when the county plays by its own set of rules.
Does it surprise you then that Christians have an agenda, or that they are engaged in political debate? After all, we left politics alone for so many years and see where it got us? Many Christians don't want to see our rights eroded further, while some want to go back to the way things used to be. I'd say I fall somewhere in between.
I'd like you to consider one thing - I agree that people came to the US to escape religious oppression, but I disagree that they came to escape religion. Most immigrant groups came with their religious views intact. They just wanted to have the freedom to chose what they believed. I don't know anyone personally (Republican or Democrat) that thinks that people should be forced into believing in God. Even the Bible doesn't teach that. But when does your right not to be offended usurp my right to worship freely? Should I have been jailed today for praying over my meal in a public restaurant if someone felt offended by my actions?
Something I'd like you to consider as well - That the vast majority of our law has its roots in the Bible. No murder, stealing, or lying in court for a start. Unless you're absolutely crazy, I can't imagine that you're want to repeal these. Yet when I hear "freedom FROM religion" then that's what I think you're saying. If you want to pick and chose the stuff you like then I have no problem with that, but if you're going to be intellectually honest then you have to admit that you're benefiting from religion as well and that it might be worth keeping.
Well, anyway, I'd really like to hear your answer about whether you hate Bush or the people that Bush represents. If you really just hate Bush as an individual then we'll replace him in a few more years with someone else who still represents our values but doesn't speak with a fake Texas drawl. ;-)
Re:So What? (Score:2)
To force your religious views on others is unacceptable. I couldn't care less if someone prays in a restaurant near me as I can just ignore them, but when you bring your beliefs to mandatory schools, that is crossing the line in a VERY big way.
Schools are for learning established facts, formulas, and reason.
Churches are for learning religion.
If you try to tell me they are one and the same, you are insulting every other religion in the world!
All you have to do is look at history to see what I mean: Newton, Galileo, and many others were all persecuted and/or imprisoned by the church for teaching their blasphemy which is now accepted as proven fact. According to the church over the centuries, the earth is flat, the center of the universe, the only planet in existence, the center of our solar system, only 4000 years old, dinosaurs never existed, etc.
They were just as certain as you are that everything they believe is 100% right, and that they are doing the right thing. This includes, by the way, The Spanish Inquisition.
Again, Christians are NOT persecuted, they are DOMINANT, enough with the everyone's-out-to-get-us complex - it's ridiculous and embarrasing, like a schoolyard bully whining that everyone picks on him. (phoniness, my pet-peeve again)
My point is: if you want to teach your kids religion, that is perfectly fine - do it in your home and at your church or even in a library... but don't force it down the throats of every person going to public schools, that's not what they're there for.
I have not mentioned my religion, and I won't - because unlike most Christians, I believe it to be a private issue, not something to try and shove down other people's throats. I believe Jesus taught this, that it is something personal and private.
Just to keep you scratching your head, keep in mind that there are _many_ Christians that believe in science, including evolution. You don't have to be one extreme or the other. Another unattributable quote: Who says God didn't invent evolution?
I can't help but notice that you're hiding behind a handle and not using your real name. More of the false persecution complex?
I also can't help but notice that you haven't responded to a single point that I've made about Bush, yet you keep trying to redirect the conversation (which was about voting manipulation & the rampant corruption in the Bush administration, NOT religion or "only Christian right-wingers can be good").
I am no longer interested in continuing this conversation, since it has stooped to this highly insulting level.
Re:So What? (Score:2)
I'm sorry you feel this way. I really am. I thought that we were getting somewhere in the discussion. My goal wasn't to force you to believe in anything, but rather to give you insight into how Christians today think and why we are so active in politics. My attempted explanation was not intended to insult you. I truly believed that if this was an intellectual conversation then we should be able to put the truth as we each see it on the table. I accepted your criticism of Bush for what it was worth - a reasoned attempt to understand what is happening in politics today. Are you not willing to extend the same courtesy to me?
"only Christian right-wingers can be good"
This is far from what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that we're all sinners and that we all need Jesus Christ for our salvation. Most Christians believe that they are sinful by their very nature and that it's only God's influence in their lives that allows them to do any good. This doesn't mean that we still don't sin. I do it every day.
I believe Jesus taught this, that it is something personal and private.
If He did then He sure had a funny way of showing it. I believe that his crucifixion was a very public event. He also never advocated the destruction on the Temple as a public place of worship. While Jesus did have his private moments, much of his ministry was in full public view. (In your defense, He did resist from using the law as a means to change people's behavior. I believe as Jesus did, that it takes a change of heart to effect real change in a person.)
Well, all I can do at this point is wish God's blessings on you for the future. If you ever want to pick up the conversation again then I'm only a "Submit" button away. :-)
Re:So What? (Score:2)
No kidding.
If, for some unknown reason, anyone thinks anything he said was made up, watch this video that includes a grandmother verbally walking a congresscritter through "hacking the vote database": http://votergate.tv/ [votergate.tv]
It's pretty shocking just how easy it is, due to the total lack of authentication or encryption.
Irresponsible at a minimum, criminal neglect more likely.
Re:So What? (Score:1, Offtopic)
I don't actually care about your content. I actually agree with some of it. I just want you to cease your fucking whining about moderation. How hard is that to understand?
I'm just making you an example. You're hardly the only one this is addressed to.
The importance of Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Elections and Technology (Score:1)
Tampering with Election Machine Software [southernstudies.org]
Re:Elections and Technology (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Elections and Technology (Score:1)
BS (Score:2)
Just give up now. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
C'mon... (Score:3, Funny)
Your point? (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't justify the errors in Washington, but it doesn't justify villifying one side either. Just about everyone cheated, somewhere.
I believe that it is vital, if democracy is to have any meaning, to work on developing a system that is provably reliable. It is possible to create essentially tamper-proof cryptographic signatures. If you add votes via a version control system of some kind, then sign every "version", you can "prove" the stream has not been modified since being created.
The vote would be in the form of a written-out XML file, so that it was absolutely clear as to what a vote was. Signatures would be in the form of an RSA public-key signature, where the signer was the voting machine, not the voter.
The first "signature" would cover the first vote. The second would cover both the first and second votes plus the first signature, etc.
This would prevent tampering, but it would also prevent database corruption as votes could only be added via the intended interface, as the signature entry would not be present.
There are other methods. I've suggested before that you could have "anonymous" encryption - unassociated private keys, with the voter using a public key they were provided with as their "voter registration card". That way, the vote would still be anonymous, but as only valid decryption keys would be used, only valid encryption keys could be used to generate the vote and provably only used once.
Indeed, you wouldn't even need high-tech voting. Anti-counterfeit measures used on currency would work just as well on ballot papers. Voting stations would then need to account for every ballot paper (unused, discarded, vote) going through them. It would make it considerably harder to add votes prior to the election, or for anyone to swipe a ballot box in transit and change the contents.
In the first two cases, system errors would not add valid information and therefore not produce fake votes, and the requirements to perpetrate electoral fraud (by a voter, candidate or party) would be raised sufficiently high to put it beyond the reach of the usual suspects.
In the third case, the bar would be lower than with the high-tech solutions, but definitely raised from where it is now. The idea is not to make fraud impossible, but to put it beyond the reach of "opportunists" and outside the realm of "accidents". There will always be people who try to beat any system, but you can reduce the number of people who have the skill to succeed from a few hundred million to a few hundred.
In other words, we don't need faulty systems in this day and age. Faulty systems are a choice, not a necessity, and I personally regard them as a remarkably stupid choice.
Re:What ever happened making every vote count? (Score:2)
Ok, I'm conservative and live near Seattle, and even I don't believe this bullshit. There are a lot of pissed off people here for sure, but this one case isn't going to change people's perceptions all that much.
I'm just happy to see the Democrats now running amok and raising taxes and pushing an agenda where getting a Botox injection is treated something like a crime. I have at least some measure of faith that while the people of our great state are left-leaning, they have a lot more common sense than to buy into this agenda. There have been huge anti-tax movements in this state, which has impacted nearly every liberal agenda item, both social and economic. The Democrats have more to fear from the initiative to repeal their centerpiece gas tax than they do from the judge's decision yesterday.
Re:What ever happened making every vote count? (Score:1)
Yeah, because actually PAYING for infrastructure improvements (the viaduct, light rail, the monorail, the 520 bridge, etc) through taxes is liberal hogwash. Everyone knows the real way to do things: Just borrow the money and let your grandkids pay! BushCo has shown us the way.
If conservatives want to have low taxes, they need to start actually picking specific gov't services to cut, instead of just bellyaching about generalities. When you start talking about specific, real things to cut, people balk and don't want to do it. Until you can convince people to accept cuts in services, stop bitching about taxes.
"pushing an agenda where getting a Botox injection is treated something like a crime. "
What the hell does this mean? (I've been out of town for a couple of weeks, and may have missed a news item.)
Re:What ever happened making every vote count? (Score:2)
Ok, lets start with the "Housing and Urban Development" program that gives individuals over $20k a year in housing vouchers. All they have to do is get to the top of a list to recieve it and not make more than x ammount of (reported) money a year. Followed up by slowly getting the feds out of health care (so the prices will finally come down). Say, increase the minimum age of medicare/medicaid by 1 year every few years for the next couple decades.
When you start talking about specific, real things to cut, people balk and don't want to do it. Until you can convince people to accept cuts in services, stop bitching about taxes.
Problem is more on the lines of who balks at what. What I balk at is probably different than what you balk at. Hence we could rarely (if ever) come to an agreement.
Re:What ever happened making every vote count? (Score:2)
That's a good point-- both Repbulcians and Democrats have shown themselves to be irresponsible with money, and the only real difference is how they choose to damage the economy to do it.
That's why you should vote for another party! Oh, wait, it seems the republicans and democrats have made running a third party campaing effectively illegal with their "Election reform" laws.
No big surprise there.
Re:What ever happened making every vote count? (Score:2)
Botox is now being taxed with a "sin tax" in the same way that cigarettes and liquor are. Last I knew, Tacoma was still trying to outlaw smoking in public establishments, as though it were a crime to smoke. (For the record, I stopped smoking 20 years ago and I hate it. But I don't have a "right" to go into a smoke-free bar. If they want my business then they have to provide me with a smoke-free environment.)
they need to start actually picking specific gov't services to cut, instead of just bellyaching about generalities.
I'm all over user fees. Want to drive on a new road then pay a toll. What sold me on the $30 tabs was that much of my car tab money was being diverted to other purposes, like public transportation and police/fire services. If you want the stuff then pay for it directly. I'd gladly pay $5/trip to get into and out of Seattle if I didn't have to sit in rush hour traffic.
Just borrow the money and let your grandkids pay! BushCo has shown us the way.
I totally agree. Being a conservative, I just don't understand this whole deficit spending logic of the current administration. But I hope you'll agree with me that the same holds true for the Social Security Trust Fund. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Re:What ever happened making every vote count? (Score:2)
Dude, it was a joke.
Election errors and trusting the system (Score:2)
A business works the same way, usually. A crappy boss can ruin efficiency, but a boss in business is really one of the players. Adherence to the system is the surest path to success, since only by adhering to it can you tell if it's working.
And so it is with democratic republics. The election may have various kinds of errors, but generally half the errors will be for each candidate. For that matter, the voters can be "wrong", but since it's an election the voters are not wrong, by definition.
Ask for a recount, accept the results and go back to chasing ambulances.
why not vote like we do in Canada (Score:2)
you vote by writeing a large x in the circle of the candidate you choose and place it in the ballet box. a ballet with any other marks on it except an x (yes it has to be an X)is considered spoiled. it is idiot proof to vote, and intenions are very clear.
btw, municipal elections had electronic voteing. the balet worked the same way, but was fed through a reader, face down, and into the ballet box. paper trail, and instant count.
Re:why not vote like we do in Canada (Score:1)
Re:why not vote like we do in Canada (Score:2)
I had the pleasure of being a volunteer for the recount in Ohio this past presidental election. A hand recount of 3% of the vote in each county was done. It was slow, boring, and incredibly accurate. If you live in an urban area, have 20 or 30 bi-partisan (preferably non-partisan, but that is a different discussion) teams doing recounts. It scales quite well.
It will probably take a few days to get exact results. Exit polls will serve as a check as well as an early indicator of which races you may want to watch (CNN didn't have to wait for any results to call Indiana or Kentucky for Bush).
Re:why not vote like we do in Canada (Score:2)
Yah, and in Florida in 2000, the punchcard ballots they used were idiot-proof and very clear (punch the chad out completely, punch only one). Yet, we had people complaining, and insisting that partially punched chads should count, and that cards with two chads should be counted (as long as one was for Gore, of course).
Make something idiot-proof, and the Universe will compensate with a better grade of idiot.
Shoddy Vote Counting (Score:2, Interesting)
Why can't we develop a more accurate system for counting votes? With our current resources, the court contest in Washington should have been a moot point: we should have known the exact vote totals without room for doubt.
Margin of Error (Score:2)
Usually, this is no big deal since most of the time elections involve a blowout that does not end so close. This only became a problem because we're in that 0.1% margin of error.
Re:Shoddy Vote Counting (Score:1)
The problems with the count were:
1) people expected a deterministic outcome.
2) the rules weren't unambiguious.
3) the rules weren't followed.
While my guy (Rossi) didn't win, I don't blame the judge and I really don't blame the winner (Gregoire). I blame the voting officials statewide.
I think that the goodwill that Rossi generated (and among the general polity it is good will) is going to be boosted by the fact that he is not pushing this to the WA Supreme court. I can only hope that he channels that good will into a groundswell of change in the Washington voting plrocess.
How to prevent this in the future (Score:1)
Valid voter verification:
Voter registration will have to have some kind of at-the-poll-verifiable biometric data. For example, to get a voter registration card, you will have to present either a picture ID, a fingerprint, or something else that you can bring with you to the polls. When you vote, your photo-id or fingerprint or whatever will be matched up to your voter-registration records, if they don't match, you get to vote provisionally. Anyone registering late or on election day will vote provisionally. If they could possibly swing the outcome of any race, provisional ballots will be verified at the least possible inconvenience to the voter, but in some cases, visiting the voter will be necessary. If all elections are certain before provisional ballots are cast, or the election is decided during such counting, the remaining ballots would remain uncounted but recorded as part of the voter turnout. Yup, your vote might not count.*
Valid Vote Verification
Electronic ballots must, of course, provide a human-readable printout that the voter can inspect. Paper ballots must be scanned at the time of voting and unreadable ballots rejected so the voter can redo the ballot. Valid ballots should also generate a human-readable printout the voter can inspect, in case of errors with the vote-counting machine.
*In states where the actual number or percentage of voters voting for losing candidates actually matters, all votes must be counted. For example, if a state says your Presidential Candidate must get 4% of the vote to get automatic ballot access, then all provisional ballots in that state must be counted until it is certain he does or does not have 4%.
/grammarnazi (Score:1)
Yes, but who decided to split the infinitive?
Re:Who Votes (Score:2)
I love how my comment is moderated as a troll, but the parent, which really IS a troll, isn't.