Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics Government Technology

Florida Election Ballots to be Printed On-Demand 143

Posted by Zonk from the love-the-smell-of-a-fresh-ballot dept.
davidwr writes "The St. Petersburg, FL, Times reports that Florida is going back to paper ballots, but with a twist. They are printing the ballots on-demand, right there at the polling booth. This isn't machine-assisted voting where a touch-screen fills in your printed ballot for you. It's just a way to save printing costs and reduce paper waste. 'Without ballot on demand, poll workers at 13 early Hillsborough voting sites would need to stockpile stacks of every possible ballot type. With ballot on demand, poll workers can print out a person's distinct ballot type when he or she arrives to vote.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Florida Election Ballots to be Printed On-Demand More

Florida Election Ballots to be Printed On-Demand

Comments Filter:

  • ink (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Turn-X Alphonse ( 789240 ) on Saturday December 29, 2007 @08:23AM (#21847914) Journal
    These machines will jam or run out of ink with no geeks around to fix it.

    Welcome to good ideas which don't stand up to the reality of 5-6 old people monitoring a station.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jmauro ( 32523 )
      I believe this will cause the improvement of printers in general when they have to procure printers on a large scale that must have ink that is easily changed, cannot jam, and can handle heavy card-stock paper. I look forward to those existing in 20 years to catch up with that idea. It's going to suck until then though.

      According to the article, these are also at the "Early Voting Stations" which tend to be a county court house or such and not for election day which will use pre-printed ballots. It pro
      • Why must they use heavy paper? All of the ballots I've seen have used paper of normal mass.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jmauro ( 32523 )
          From the second section of the linked article, "The heavy-stock paper ballots themselves represent a major cost addition that comes with optical scanning."

          Florida apparently uses heavy-stock paper for their ballots. Other jurisdictions do not.

      • Re:ink (Score:4, Informative)

        by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Saturday December 29, 2007 @09:38AM (#21848358)
        If you can print up your own ballots on any printer, what's to stop you from printing up extra ballots at home and slipping a few extras in the ballot box. Once they are in there, they would be hard to tell from the authentic ones. I hope they are incorporating some kind of security features into these ballots, and aren't just using standard inkjet printers on standard inkjet paper. The paper ballots we use up here in Canada are printed on special paper, to ensure that people aren't printing up extra ballots. Each printed ballot is accounted for.
        • I'm not so worried about voters, but corrupt poll workers. All of the "paper trail" advocates basically ignore this problem.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by avdp ( 22065 ) *
            I don't think that the "paper trail" folks ignore it at all. At any given polling station there are (always?) various observers from all interested parties to watch the poll workers.
            • Right, they're competent to see ballot box stuffing but incompetent to see anyone pulling the case off of an electronic voting machine to hack it.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by avdp ( 22065 ) *
                The key concern isn't really the machine would be hacked on election day (not that that would necessarily be impossible to do). I has more to do it hacked before hand (i.e. is it program is ignore or change votes for a certain candidate, etc) or frankly, is there a software bug that causes votes to be lost or misrecorded - and if it was, how would you know without any paper trail?

          • All of the "paper trail" advocates basically ignore this problem.

            No, we don't.

      • Dot matrix printer?
        The world of tomorrow, YESTERDAY

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Gadget_Guy ( 627405 )

      These machines will jam or run out of ink with no geeks around to fix it.

      I don't know how they cope in offices around the world without a geek on hand to change their printer toners. If even my 70 year old mother can fix paper jams in complicated photocopiers then it shouldn't be too hard to find people to keep the machines running.

      The geeks aren't supposed to be changing toners, they should be making printers that are easy enough for the common pleb to change without assistance. If this can't be done then the geeks have failed.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Znork ( 31774 )
      There's a whole host of printing technologies adapted to low/easy maintenance type situations.

      Think thermal printers used in point-of-sale equipment. Not inkjet or office laser printer.
    • Yep; My first thought was like yours--now the election can be thwarted in new ways!

      It would be so much easier just to go back to monarchy or dictatorship! /not serious

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by barzok ( 26681 )
      How many people per polling place? One toner cartridge could easily last the duration of election day with a sufficiently large toner supply in the printer itself. Or even multiple reservoirs of toner.

  • What happens in case of... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pichu0102 ( 916292 ) on Saturday December 29, 2007 @08:25AM (#21847940) Homepage Journal
    ...machine malfunction, or the printers not printing out the correct things?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by SEWilco ( 27983 )
      The machines will always print out the correct things.
      Don't challenge the machines! No Senate candidates for you!
    • Then Geek Squad will decide the election.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ivoras ( 455934 )
      What's the problem here? Ginormous megamarts (wal-mart, etc.) can cope with miles of bills printed every day - I'd say this particular technology is well understood and implemented.

  • For your added convenience (Score:5, Funny)

    by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Saturday December 29, 2007 @08:26AM (#21847954) Homepage Journal
    They will be pre-filled in for the Republican candidate. To save you the time of thinking that your vote will actually be counted towards the candidate you intend to vote for.

    • Re:For your added convenience (Score:4, Funny)

      by LaughingCoder ( 914424 ) on Saturday December 29, 2007 @08:44AM (#21848038)
      ... and if you are in the military, they will be printed with disappearing ink.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by haakondahl ( 893488 )
      Your post is deranged, so I'll respond to your .sig:

      An individual's pompous pronouncements on internet fora should be proportional to that person's ability to use the local language.

      Upon completing my liberal education, the real learning began.

      Of course the p.o.d. ballots are an accident waiting to happen. The whole point of printing the ballots ahead of time is to ensure to the extent possible *ahead of time*, i.e., with time for corrective action to be taken, that there will be no systemic failures

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        Of course the p.o.d. ballots are an accident waiting to happen. The whole point of printing the ballots ahead of time is to ensure to the extent possible *ahead of time*, i.e., with time for corrective action to be taken, that there will be no systemic failures.

        You also know ahead of time how many ballot papers you need, because you know the number of people entitled to vote ahead of time. If you have unused ballot papers you can just recycle the paper.

        I am impressed by the spectacular cheapness display

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by leenks ( 906881 )
          If you don't know how many people are entitled to vote prior to the election you have got serious problems anyway.
          • The number of registered voters is known in advance. The percentage that will show up is not known, but it is usually less than half.

            Buy stock in thermal paper companies. it's coming with POD ballots or with paper trail for voting kiosks.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by rtb61 ( 674572 )
              More pointedly the number of people turning up at any specific polling station is not known. Hence each polling station should have an excess of ballots to ensure people can vote, at least 25% greater than any previous turn out at that polling station would be suitable along with a minimum reserve so that extra can be delivered if required.

              Printing at site sounds like a reasonable idea, they should not forget to have oversized ballots printed and on display so people can check the validity of the ballot t

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by mpe ( 36238 )
              The number of registered voters is known in advance. The percentage that will show up is not known, but it is usually less than half.

              So what? Printed paper is dirt cheap. Even if you overprint ballot papers by a few hundred percent you are still talking several orders of magnitude less in terms of "leftovers" than unsold copies of just about any newspaper (Which will often also contain "inserts" with much better quality paper and printing.)

              Buy stock in thermal paper companies. it's coming with POD ball
              • Considering how "stable" thermal paper is it... , just wait for when the truck arrives with the ballots, after driving around in that Florida sunshine.
        • The one thing that this system does address on some level is actually printing ballots that you know are needed, and enough to cover your needs. You say that you know how many to print ahead of time because you know how many people are entitled to vote. Do you really? 1. Registered voter records are incorrect when the ballots are published and shot count an area of the appropriate number of ballots. 2. Someone makes a mistake filling out a ballot and need a replacement. 3. Someone accidentally goes to t
          • 3. Someone accidentally goes to the wrong precinct.


            In which case, they're sent to the right one. You can't (at least not in California, where I've worked the polls for over twenty years) vote in any random precinct, you have to go to the one you're registered in.

    • I guess the scumbags understand they'll need to come up with a new approach if they want to steal another election. You can only hit a mule between the eyes so many times before it figures out what the baseball bat is for.
      • I love how everyone forgets the elections stolen by the Democrats in Chicago.

        • Forgot? You mean when Daley got all those dead people to vote for Kennedy in 1960? Interesting observation, but off-topic and irrelevant. Graveyards have turned out for one candidate or another before, and no doubt will do so again. They can't often change things on a national scale.

          Technology is the subject of discussion, and how much easier it makes perpetration of widespread electoral fraud. Daley managed to flip one county in a dead even election, and would probably be caught if he tried it today

  • It would be very interesting to read the threat analysis for this scheme, which doesn't have decades of world-wide experience behind it like print-in-advance ballots do, with all the associated gubbins such as secure printers and individually numbered ballots which are audited and counted and signed for every time they change hands.

    (Even with proper ballots there's an interesting question: if there are 1,000 voters and there has never been a turnout of more than 300 in this area, how many ballots do you pri

    • Re:Threat model (Score:4, Interesting)

      by lachlan76 ( 770870 ) on Saturday December 29, 2007 @08:46AM (#21848046)

      Call in a mathematician and get them to figure out how many ballots should be needed to keep costs to a minimum, assuming you leave open the option of printing more ballots, in case the 5/1/0.01% probability comes back to bite you---whether printing it off with a printer on-site, or keeping a large-scale printer on standby in the event that it looks like you are to run out.

      The maths isn't exactly difficult---with sufficient historical data, one learns all that's necessary in high school, at least down my way.

      That said, we have compulsory voting down our way (Australia), so it's not really an issue that comes up. For that matter, does the risk of printing ~600 sheets of paper too many matter that much? It shouldn't be a problem.

      • There's no particular reason to suppose that just applying proper statistical theory will produce the right answer. Because elections aren't like that.

        For example, the next door ward to mine typically had a 19% turnout. For years and years and years.

        We knew that if we could get the turnout up to 29%, by persuading just one person in ten to come out and vote for us instead of sitting at home, we'd take the seat. But we never had enough bodies on the street to actually fight that ward.

        Until the year we did. R

        • In other words, it would have worked for "years and years and years", except for one year where this wasn't the case? That is why you have to keep a backup supply of ballots ready---there is always a minimal chance of an outlier appearing. That said, deciding what to do the next year would be a bit tough.

          Statistics can't predict everything, but it can minimise costs over long periods of time. Human involvement doesn't make something immune to statistical analysis, though it may increase the variance suc

    • Just print out 1000. It doesn't cost that much compared to 300 ballots, or 600 ballots, or however many ballots you think you might need. And print out a couple extra incase somebody makes a mistake and needs an extra ballots. For a voting area with 1000 voters, just print out 2000 ballots. That will make sure you have enough. The cost of the ballots is miniscule, and compared to the cost to buy computers in other voting districts, is nothing. You can probably print all the ballots for a single riding

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        Just print out 1000. It doesn't cost that much compared to 300 ballots, or 600 ballots, or however many ballots you think you might need. And print out a couple extra incase somebody makes a mistake and needs an extra ballots. For a voting area with 1000 voters, just print out 2000 ballots.

        Since the major cost tends to be setting up the printer in the first place you may well find that there is no difference in cost between 1000 and 2000 because 2000 is the printer's minimum order. You might even find tha

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mpe ( 36238 )
      (Even with proper ballots there's an interesting question: if there are 1,000 voters and there has never been a turnout of more than 300 in this area, how many ballots do you print, bearing in mind that you'll almost certainly lose your job if you print just one too few, but on the other hand people will be upset with you if you end up wasting two thirds of your print cost?)

      Your just under 300 printed one at a time on an inkjet probably costs more than just over a thousand on a regular printing press.
      Als

  • What's wrong with paper (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ckwop ( 707653 ) on Saturday December 29, 2007 @08:28AM (#21847974) Homepage

    I like this move. With all the diebold problems and election computers found to be wanting, nobody has really addressed the question: "What is wrong with paper in the first place?"

    Sure, it's slow to count but not overly so. While US ballots are more complicated than UK ballots they still take just over a day to count. If you can't wait that long, you're just impatient.

    If you want a quick answer, just use exit polls. Until Bush's election fraud, these were a reliable way of having an idea of who has won the election.

    We already have a well evolved security procedure for handling paper ballots. Why are people so quick to throw that away a proven solution and to try a totally closed computer system off a random vendor to solve a problem that never really existed anyway? I'll leave the answer is an exercise to the reader.

    Simon

    • Re:What's wrong with paper (Score:5, Interesting)

      by oliderid ( 710055 ) on Saturday December 29, 2007 @08:48AM (#21848062) Journal
      "What is wrong with paper in the first place?"

      Here in Belgium we have electronic vote for more than ten years. I've seen recently a study comparing paper and electronic machine costs.

      I don't remember the figures precisly but it was something like:

      The cost per vote on paper 2 US$
      The cost per electronic vote 5 US$

      I always been extremely suspicious about these electronic voting machine. Especially those running Windows (Desktop PC) with accessible serial ports like those we have here.

      The good news is that the government plans to get rid of it (at least for a part of the country) and go back to the much safer (and cheaper) paper.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )
        Isn't printer ink more expensive than vintage champaign? Let's hope they use laser printers.
        • It is if you only compare quantity. If you compare use then no, by far ink is less expensive.

          They probably are going to use laser printers. I went to the county election board office to vote last election because I was working and it was closer then driving all the way across the county to vote at my normal precinct. They printed my ballot on the spot for me. It took about 10-15 minutes longer then if I walked into my normal precinct but it was still faster then driving across the county and back to the job

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            It is if you only compare quantity. If you compare use then no, by far ink is less expensive.


            What is that supposed to mean? Toner is much cheaper than inkjet ink per page, colour or black and white. Laser printers are often faster than inkjet printers too. Toner is less prone to smudging and dries sets much instantly, unlike ink which take a little while to completely dry.
            • When you consider the original comparison was Isn't printer ink more expensive than vintage champaign you see the point.

              Ink costs more then champaign if you buy it by the same size bottle. If you compare it to what it does, Ink get way more mileage then vintage champaign. So the cost comparison isn't complete until you figure the use into it. A bottle of champaign, vintage or not, won't print a million documents.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )
                What kind of stupid comparison is that? My comparison made sense: compare very common everyday liquid to a notoriously expensive and uncommon liquid. The comparison was to illustrate how relatively expensive ink is, considering how little it costs to produce and that is is mass produced on a far greater scale than champaign (I'm talking about real champaign).

                I can't even be bothered to point out exactly why your comments are so stupid any more, if you think this makes sense: "If you compare it to what it do

                • What kind of stupid comparison is that? My comparison made sense: compare very common everyday liquid to a notoriously expensive and uncommon liquid. The comparison was to illustrate how relatively expensive ink is, considering how little it costs to produce and that is is mass produced on a far greater scale than champaign (I'm talking about real champaign).

                  You comparison did not take into consideration the productivity of either liquid. Once you put that into context, it doesn't seem that expensive. If

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                    You comparison did not take into consideration the productivity of either liquid.


                    In that case champaign must be a total rip-off, it puts my productivity right through the floor.
    • 1) 'Hanging chad' is what is wrong with paper. What do you do with multiple markings or corrections on a ballot? What if someone's out of ink or doesn't press hard enough? Or changes her mind and tries to cross out the initial selection? Electronic voting can force the voter to make a clear, unambiguous choice while paper cannot.

      2) Ballot stuffing should be much harder with e-voting. The machine can enforce hard limits (1 vote per minute or whatever) and perform basic sanity checks like making sure the poll

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        Electronic voting can force the voter to make a clear, unambiguous choice while paper cannot.

        It can also force them to do things they may not wish to, but the person who designed the election thinks they should so. e.g. what happens if you have multiple elections on the same ballot. With a voter wishing to vote in some, abstain in others and "spoil their vote" with others.
        The simple solution is to give them individual ballot papers for each election if they want to take some of them home to use as toilet
        • An election official, who should never be working at their designated voting location, has to be very careful that they don't get seen by anyone. If for some reason there arn't enough people around then multiple video cameras watching the ballot box are a far more useful application of technology.

          Also every voting station I've ever seen has representatives from each party as well as other volunteers. Nobody ever gets left on their own and the ballot boxes are in plain view in front of everyone.

          Even in our
    • If you want a quick answer, just use exit polls.

      Exit polls have self selected samples. They are decidedly unscientific, and should have much higher error ranges than the poll salesmen give them. People who want to be polled get polled, those who don't don't. Go watch some exit polls. In the last election I saw two or three people waiting to be polled. People who wanted to be polled had gravitated to people with clipboards.

      So why did a few counties in 2000 have such skewed exit polls when other elections did

  • Money-making opportunity (Score:5, Funny)

    by Thunderstruck ( 210399 ) on Saturday December 29, 2007 @08:31AM (#21847986)
    This is a really great idea. I really, really great idea. This is the kind of "duh" stuff that all of our modern technology is supposed to help fix.

    You know what would be an even better idea? Make these ballot printers with a special, proprietary ink cartridge. This would help prevent counterfeit ballots. Of course, since you can't let these machines break down, the cartidges would probably have to have an internal sensor that shuts down the printer when the ink level gets low. Maybe, just to be safe, they would have to kick in when about 60% of the ink is gone. We need to protect the voters, after all. ...and really, how many tax-payers pay attention to the money their government spends on ink?

    • Re:Money-making opportunity (Score:4, Interesting)

      by LaughingCoder ( 914424 ) on Saturday December 29, 2007 @08:46AM (#21848050)

      Make these ballot printers with a special, proprietary ink cartridge. ... This would help prevent counterfeit ballots.
      A better way than special ink would be to have the blank ballots watermarked.

      • Both (special paper and ink) would be better. Otherwise, someone could steal (or reproduce) the watermarked paper, run off a bunch of ballots that will scan incorrectly, and put them back in the pile. If special ink were required, they would have to steal or reproduce that as well, making it more difficult to interfere.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by LaughingCoder ( 914424 )
          ... and maybe the printers should run on non-standard electricity. And they could require some special atmosphere for the ink to properly dry. And then the ballots could be coated with some sort of toxic substance that, when handled, kills the person touching it in seconds. Only the specially powered printers operating in the specially formulated atmosphere can properly remove the toxic coating so that the ballots can be safely handled.

          Seriously, the point of this idea is to save money. Inventing custom

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mpe ( 36238 )
          Both (special paper and ink) would be better. Otherwise, someone could steal (or reproduce) the watermarked paper, run off a bunch of ballots that will scan incorrectly, and put them back in the pile. If special ink were required, they would have to steal or reproduce that as well, making it more difficult to interfere.

          Most of this is already in place. You might just as well go the whole hog and make the election about who can put the most specially printed and watermarked ballot papers (other wise known
    • the Republicans don't seem to mind all that much; just make sure that the red in comes due when the next generation will have to pay it.

  • Cryptographic verification (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sakdoctor ( 1087155 ) on Saturday December 29, 2007 @08:48AM (#21848064) Homepage
    I don't get. We have had, in theory, the protocols to make cryptographically secure verifiable & anonymous e-voting for years now, and yet it hasn't been implemented.

    A bunch of hungover CS undergrads with 24 hours till their deadline, would come up with a better e-voting implementation than the hopelessly naive excuses spewed up by diebold et al.

    • Re:Cryptographic verification (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cfortin ( 23148 ) <chris@fortins.org> on Saturday December 29, 2007 @09:05AM (#21848140)
      No, no we don't.

      Its the verifiable & anonymous that's hard. Perhaps you have a point if you assume that the machines are working as intended, the programs written correctly, and the code running on the machines is the same that was certified.

      Maintaining formal control over evoting machines, given the number of district and varying forms uses, can't help but cost orders of magnitude more than just using paper votes with an electronic counter, like they do here in RI.

      Diabold shows what happens whenever cost-to-impliment-correctly is significantly more than cost-to-look-like-you-satisfied-the-contract.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mounthood ( 993037 )
      What makes you think anyone outside slashdot wants voting to be secured by cryptography? It might as well be magic for most people, not just that they couldn't implement it, but that they don't even understand what it really means. SSL on websites makes it clear that people may trust it, sort of, but they sure don't understand it. A paper ballot though? Everyone can understand how that system works and whether it's fair or not.

    • We have had, in theory, the protocols to make cryptographically secure verifiable & anonymous e-voting for years now, and yet it hasn't been implemented.

      Cite?

  • Duh (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    We do it all the time...here in India...

    Only difference is, sometimes the vehicle, which is supposed to bring the ballot papers on demand from paper factory, is also out of order...

  • So what keeps you from getting a subtle identifying mark (barcode, watermark, whatever) placed on your individually printed ballot?

    And then what keeps someone from paying off those who voted as instructed, or beating the hell out of someone who didn't vote as instructed?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by db32 ( 862117 )
      Simple. This is America and that cannot happen. Well unless of course you read a history book, but don't believe that history nonsense, its all lies anyways right? The head in the sand mentality will stop anyone from looking at this with a critical eye the same way the evoting nonsense slid through. I just want to beat people senseless when they pull that "it can't happen here" card. I'm sure there are millions of people who would be more than willing to describe why "it can't happen here" is a really
      • More to the point, whether or not a citizen can be influenced prior to casting his vote has nothing to with the need for secure and accurate voting processes. Those are two separate (but equally important) issues. Frankly, the most dangerous influence on the voting public comes not from armed thugs, but from our two political parties.

        No voting system, however well designed, can correct for fundamental deficiencies in society in and of itself. That's still no reason not to develop a good system in the fir
    • my thoughts exactly. Most laser printers and copiers already insert a watermark for traceability if they are used dor cointerfitting. Its easy to do and almost undetectable. I wouldn't trust such a ballot to be secret.

      Madcow.
  • So they dropped the idea of easerable markers and registering school children?
  • So how is a partial paper ballot useful for verification ?
  • And they will tell you that no matter what, they're old, and they can't manage anything.
    • My poling place is in a retirement community in California. The precinct workers are all senior citizens. Last election we used something like this and they had no trouble running the equipment and printing out ballots as needed.
  • Printers are going to break, people are going to be stuck in line waiting for a ballot to be printed.

    What a wonderful clusterfuck this is going to turn out to be.
  • Don't be shocked if "PC Load Letter" replaces "hanging chads".
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Speaking as a Floridian, I think folks are missing the obvious point here: this is Florida, and we'll certainly screw it up.

  • WTF (Score:2)

    by SQLz ( 564901 )
    They can't do a validated paper trail for electronic voting because of paper jams...but they can print the entire ballot? I have a sneaking suspicion that voting means nothing.

  • A few things people are missing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Eravnrekaree ( 467752 ) on Saturday December 29, 2007 @04:41PM (#21851426)
    There are a few points that should be made here that many people are missing. This on demand system will be used in early voting (before the official election date) where a voter can show up at any voting location in a county to vote. This is a problem since each precint needs a different ballot, for the congressional districts which vary by district. So they needed a way to give a person a ballot for their precinct, without having to have perhaps dozens of different ballots at the early voting locations. On the main election day, ballots will be preprinted, since everyone in a precinct uses the same ballot. As far as concerns about anonymity, it should be only necessary to type in the precinct number into the computer connected to the printer, not any of the voters identifiying information.

    Paper ballots will be a definite improvement and certainly the move back to paper ballots should be appreciated. There needs to be a paper trail to verify that votes are being properly counted. Since one cannot see inside of a computer to verify that their vote was recorded onto the disk, it is essential to have a user verifiable paper ballot. Computer voting machines make rigging elections just too easy.

Slashdot Top Deals

Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

Close