![The Courts The Courts](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/court_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![Software Software](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/software_64.png)
![News News](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/news_64.png)
![Politics Politics](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/politics_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
EFF Sues NC Election Board 247
Kludge writes "The EFF is suing the NC elections board. The board certified several voting machine manufacturers although none of the manufacturers would comply with the state law (passed unanimously) that the machine code be kept in escrow."
cool (Score:2, Funny)
Re:cool (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Government is supposed to be TRANSPARENT in a republic like ours. This is why you can watch congress on CSPAN, sit in on a trial, speak at your town meeting etc. The very fact that we allow all these things shows as a society we value this transparency. We should not allow it to be taken from us through the use of magic black boxes everywhere that nobody can talk about what they do or how they work because some company has a patent or won't release their soure or whatever. Any and ALL equipment used in our governing process should be Open Source pure and simple no exceptions this nation was built on transparency lets have some. In fact this really should be a Constitutional Amendment!
democracy? no... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:democracy? no... (Score:2)
Perhaps it is just a stupid flavor of humility (Score:4, Insightful)
As a Christian and a scientist I am of the opinion that "Intelligent Design" is bad science and bad theology.
As for the "poser intellectualts"...there are idiots and assholes at every point of the compass and everywhere on the spectrum from left to right.
I think what most people are frustrated with is the complete absence of dialog and debate. I personally think that the likes of Karl Rove and his Democratic counterparts have done this. It seems nobody has the time for a real debate any more. We see our President in front of a banner with the "on message" catch phrase of the week. We hear some hand wringing wimp from the democratic side whining...
So, getting back to the topic of the article, TRANSPARENCY is the key. I agree the President should ability to receive candid input from whoever he wants it from....but if Enron execs ghost wrote our energy policy (as is likely the case) the voting public deserves to know and make an informed decision. The news media is so busy reporting on each other that they can't be counted on for that....but there is still hope unless our voting machines can't be relied upon as unbiased (not to claim they were ever perfect), it is that much easier for the cynical and power hungry to ignore the frustrated voter...and in turn it is easier for the frustrated voter to tune out.
Re:Perhaps it is just a stupid flavor of humility (Score:3, Insightful)
"even though", not "because" (Score:5, Informative)
No Because (Score:3, Informative)
If one of them had broken ranks and put their code in Escrow, he would have certified just that one.
My gast was totally flabbered by the explanation, and you don't like to say such things, but I recall Diebold and the American association for the blind, suddenly demanding electronic voting, while at the same time getting a new $17 million equipment centr
Re:"even though", not "because" (Score:3, Informative)
Personally, I feel they should have kept the old machines until someone was able to comply with the law (at least escrowing their old code). No, they don't need to escrow Microsoft Windows, which was part of D
Re:"even though", not "because" (Score:3, Insightful)
Where does this board get the authority (or the stones) to "override" state law?
-Peter
Re:"even though", not "because" (Score:5, Insightful)
Oops. Busted!
Re:"even though", not "because" (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they don't need to escrow Microsoft Windows
They bloody should do. Who knows what is in there and whether it is secure. On principle, any person in the country should be able to have a look at how the voting process works, if they care to. Or more likely, get opinions from those who are able to look at it closely.
Besides - these are machines to count how many times a candidate is selected and print out a paper receipt. Do they really need an OS as complicated and bulky as Windows to implement this
Re:"even though", not "because" (Score:5, Insightful)
We just had municipal elections here in British Columbia and I used a 'voting machine'. You mark off your votes on a letter size piece of paper by darkening the circles. Then you feed it face down into a scanner, which deposits the page in the ballot box after tallying it.
Election results are available quickly from the machine.
Hand recounts are perfectly possible because of the hard copy record.
What is so difficult about requiring hard copy records? Votes are worth one sheet of paper.
Chuck
Summary? (Score:2, Informative)
"The board certified several voting machine manufacturers even though none of the manufacturers would comply with the state law (passed unanimously) that the machine code be kept in escrow."
Re:Summary? (Score:2)
The fact is that those companies weren't ingoring the law (to a known extreme): they were applying for a public contract. It is the election board the one violating law, since noone of the bidders (well, surely "to bid" is not the proper verb here, sorry for my bad English) should have gained the contract. That's why EFF is not going after the companies but
I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:4, Interesting)
The EFF is worried about e-voting based on the likely possibility of vote manipulations. Those in power of the election boards have an incredible amount of power in abusing the democratic process.
I'm no fan of democracy as all I see in democracy is the ability to manipulate the vote to further the interests of the elite. Democracy is merely a shroud fooling the voting citizens into thinking they don't live in an authoritarian and favoritist regime.
Votes are manipulated in more ways than just electronically:
1. The FEC sets federal campaign finance guidelines. Any restriction in how you spend your money is unconstitutionally limiting your freedom of expression. The primary goal of campaign finance reform is to give the authoritarian political parties great power over non-authoritarian parties. What democracy needs is Real Campaign Finance Reform [realcampaignreform.org] (group is gone) that gives everyone back their ability to express their beliefs politically. Even if you want to give money to a third party, they can't do much with it and you can't give as much as you want.
2. The FEC gives voters the idea that money corrupts government. Government corrupts due to unlimited power to control, not because of voter donations. If our federal government ran beneath their constitutional boundaries, no amount of bribery or donations would make one difference. Russian could give every Congressman a billion dollars a piece, but the Constitutional would not allow any Congressman to give Russia (or any group or individual) preferential treatment.
3. The school system is unbalanced in teach the Constitution, leaving the majority of the population unsure of the real power of the Constitution -- leaving people free to use the rights they are born with, and preventing any government from walking over those rights.
4. Voters are given completely biased ballots. Proper ballots should force the voter to know who they are voting for and write in the candidate. Offering ballots showing the current office holder or party affiliation provides more power to the two authoritarian parties.
5. Voters are only allowed to see commercials from major parties as they are offered (illegal) campaign matching funds in addition to virtually unlimited campaign budgets. Third parties can not raise the necessary funds as they are limited by finance reform guidelnies.
6. Voters never get to see every candidate in the debates as the debate committees are run by authoritarian parties unwilling to give up their powers.
7. Voters are confused by the colluding media that wants them to vote in order to give the authoritarian candidates the mandates needed to expand the power of government. Voters rarely hear that voting is wrong and that the process setting up the vote is a collusion between the authoritarian parties.
I hope that the EFF can see how short they come when they prosecute only the voting machines, rather than the voting system.
Do what I do. Don't vote for any candidate -- write yourself in for every position.
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
4. Voters are given completely biased ballots. Proper ballots should force the voter to know who they are voting for and write in the candidate. Offering ballots showing the current office holder or party affiliation provides more power to the two authoritarian parties.
If the ballots forced you to write in the name of the candidate you were voting for, the two main parties would get even more of the vote than the currently do, because of their enormous advantage in advertising. Candidates from the two
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
I disagree. Right now, we have people going to the voting booth picking names because of the group next to it, with no knowledge of who the candidate really is. I'd rather see
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
MUCH more important than voting machines... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:MUCH more important than voting machines... (Score:2)
In taking "all other parties off the ballots", doesn't that just mean taking them off the straight-ticket vote? I don't think it makes sense to straight-ticket vote Libertarian, Green or whatever simply because not all offices have canidates in that party, I think one is better off going line-by-line for that, otherwise, if you don't have a canidate for an office in that party, then the vote goes to noone.
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:3, Insightful)
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other forms that have been tried." - Winston Churchill
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
The debates (Score:2)
6. Voters never get to see every candidate in the debates as the debate committees are run by authoritarian parties unwilling to give up their powers.
I'm amazed out how many people don't realize that, in the last presidential election, two minority candidates who were on the ballot were arrested because they were trying to participate in the "non-partisan" debates (they'd gotten as far as getting a court order before they were stopped).
--MarkusQ
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:3, Interesting)
Says you. Got a court case to cite in support of your position? Didn't think so. It's just your opinion versus 200+ years of jurisprudence. First of all, money is not speech. Second of all:
What democracy needs...
You said democracy was a sham to provide cover for authoritatarian and favoritist regimes. Who is favored? The people with money. So you want to "reform democracy" by entirely removing the m
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
Money isn't speech, money is expression. What you buy expresses what you need. This is how life operates. Everything we do is a form of expression, including working, speaking, writing, singing, and spending money. Here [google.com] are some links.
So you want to "reform democracy" by entirely removing the meager limitations on how
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
The Constitution was unique in that it allowed for a tiny federal government to strictly defend the States from each other and from outsiders. Instead of being one country where everyone is equally taxes and trampled on, we were
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:3, Interesting)
The founders thought that seperation of powers would keep the government in check, but they did this without knowing the power of party p
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
I ABSOLUTELY disagree with this. Without rules, there is still no fair election, because all it means is that people with money will buy political influence. It's like having special shares of stock in a corporation where your vote counts as two, but everyone else's counts as one. Give every one ONE and ONLY ONE vote, and an equal opportunity to make an i
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
You're equating money with power. This is wrong. The power comes from the governed giving the politician that power. Take away the power and the money disappears. Corporations and individuals want to spend money to influence politicians but not you. Why? Because the politicians have a monopoly on power. The Constitution was to restrict these powers, but you, the voters, decided t
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
I understand where you are coming from, and I don't really like the message that restrictions send, but the effect without them is that pe
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
Going up against an authoritarian system controlled by 2 authoritarian parties unwilling to give up their power is a tough fight. Perhaps the EFF could blow their entire budget trying to bring a lawsuit to change the entire government, but that's a longshot.
This voting machine BS is a blatant violation of a state law by the state election committee. Its pretty cut-and-dry.
Bogus election machines would give that authoritarian system unlimited control over th
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:4, Insightful)
Democracy is basically 51% of the citizens deciding together to give up certain personal rights and powers to an elected official. 49% of the people may decide they don't want to give up those rights and powers, but they're considered "wrong." The elected official in a democracy holds office for a certain period of time and has no reason to follow through with what the voters initially wanted, and the voters can not remember what they wanted so many years ago.
This is the flaw with voting and the power of the free market. In a free market you can change your mind constantly, and the market will provide for what you want. Democracy only lets you change your mind once every 4 years or so, and you can never fix past errors in judgement, as they are now law.
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and you can fix past errors in judgment. Laws can be repealed (even amendments!) and courts can find laws unconstitutional, even if they were found consitutional before, if "society's understanding of the facts have been fundamentally altered." To paraphrase Justice O'Connor.
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
We had free market banking until Lincoln came along (previous central banks failed due to inflation). A free market bank takes deposits in gold and issues bank notes for the depositor. The depositor can use these notes to make purchases. Every bank has their own currency. If a bank decides to print fake notes, runs on the banks causes the bank to go bankrupt. Read Murray Rothbard's "What has government done to our money?" for a great run down on how money was once wealth and i
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no respect for any teacher that is a member of any teacher union [theadvocates.org]. I have at least 4 friends who are teachers who quit the unions and still teach, and I have the utmost respect for them. If you are a teacher and a member of the socialist union [wisc.edu], you're trash, plain and simple. Read what the teacher unions [heartland.org] do every year and you'll agree.
Have you talked to the crazy parents teachers have to put up with? Most will actually tell you they expect the school to t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
There is no merit compensation system, because of the longevity pay. There is no incentive to be outstanding, only the personal desire to do your best. This is why
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
One other aspect you may have missed is the counterfeit tax that government produces that harms us just as much as their other taxes: they print new money. This causes old money (that the average citizen holds) to devalue, causing prices to go up. This new money is available to the wealthiest and most powerful to use first, so we don't see the effect for months or years.
Printing money forces everyone into a higher tax bracket without us realizing it. Printing money creates booms
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
http://swz.salary.com/salarywizard/layouthtmls/swz l_compresult_national_ED03000011.html [salary.com]
Your mother would very likely be much better compensated in a private school rather than a public school. Since she's been in for 30 years, she's really never going to get better pay while working under a teacher union. Longevity is a real annoyance...
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
Okay, our education system is in trouble, and it could be profitable if they tried, and our kids education sucks. All right, sucks compared to what? Compared to Japan and its publically-funded education system? Compared to Germany and its publically-funded education system? Or just sucks in general, and every
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
You say education has turned into daycare? How has school replaced parents? Because we as a culture don't hold strong parenting in high regard? How is that the school's fault? Or the government's fault?
I know many parents that are exceptional parents. One parent I'm frien
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
Absolutely. But when you vote for the federal or state government to get involved in taxing me to pay for your kids' educations, it isn't free. You can join the government-funding of schools, but don't force me to do it. I disagree with everything a public school stands for. I am no longer free.
Nope. I choose to tax everybody so everybody have enough money to raise their children, disregarding where they were born or under what surname.
Yet if the parents don't take an
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
The word "Dollar" comes from Thaler. Thaler referred to one of the best gold coin producers. Gold was money, not the other way around. Items were priced at their weight in gold.
Again, money is not complex. Rothbard's (free) book on money is a great read and really clarifies the issue. http://www.mises.org/money.asp [mises.org]
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
1: Arguing by reference is even worse than arguing by authority. If you want to make a point, make the damn point and don't try and reference a book you read to back it up.
2: I use money to feed myself and my wife, I trade it for goods and servies, and I perform certain actions expressly because I am given money in return. In contrast, the only articles of gold or silver I
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
Check it out. It is a simple short read. http://www.mises.org/money.asp [mises.org]
The idea of the "dollar" came from gold. Everything valuable was priced in a certain weig
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
I don't think you understand money half as well as you pretend to. Gold and silver only have as much value as people believe it has based on scarcity, no different than scarce pieces of paper printed by a government or a bank. For such an apparently ardent capitalist you seem to miss the fundamental point of capitalism -- that a thing is "worth" exactly what someone else is willing to pay for i
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
Money is one thing and only one thing: a third party bartering tool. Of course money only has the value that people attribute to it, but to think that fiat money will HOLD value is to miss the mark completely.
Gold is the best form of money due to the fact that it doesn't degrade, it is nearly impossible
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
Money has become a means to trade, not to build wealth. It is a means to an end.
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
This is a very fair practice and a useful thought experiment that will help one decide what elements of government may be desirable and which elements may be desirable only at first glance*. I highly recommend reading the GPs response to the parent. I think it is insightful if slightly incendiary.
*See Bastiat's What is Seen and What is Not Seen
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, in Hong Kong most currency is issued by three private banks, each with their own design. The govt issues coins and one low-denomination bill. The banks do have to be licenced, and have sufficient assets to cover their cash.
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
Excerpts that mention money:
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
No Sta
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:3, Interesting)
Quite like true democratics.
"Who would issue currency?"
Popular acceptance (just like money currency).
"How could you enforce rapidly-changing laws?"
You won't. That's your elected official problem. If you see rapidly-changing laws to be a problem or otherwise you don't credit the candidate to be able to cope with an environment where laws change too fast, just vote another candidate that promise you to be not so change-friendly. On the other hand, when you fi
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they're considered "losers".
What is a free market? Anarchy? I'm not ready to subscribe to your new
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
This is utter nonsense. When was the last time the President vetoed anything that he KNEW was unconstitutional? When was the last time the Supreme Court actually performed a Constitutional act? When was the last time Congress upturned a law and what is the ratio of dead laws versus new ones?
We have so many laws at the federal level that are unconstitutional, and it continues every day. I read the Congressional rec
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
You're complicating the process with your own opinions. First of all, a pure democratic process means that laws/regulations are created-by and voted-on by everyone everytime. That's currently not efficient at this time, so most societies have a representative democracy where a few representatives are elected and they in-turn vote in laws/regulations. It's also not currently desir
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
I know, I type on a PDA phone (320x240 resolution) and I use autocomplete text. I had a great big thumbnail for typing but it broke in Vegas when I was rolling craps. Now I'm waiting for it to grow back!
Write-in only ballots would be a pain in the ass to deal with. What would happen if two people with the same last name ran? You'd have
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
Really? When a freedom lover is asked about out-of-control government, they'll usually ask for the ability to take back the rights given to government over the past 100 years or so. That is what I am doing, picking the best person to make decisions for me. When I vote for myself, I'm voting for the right person for the job of controlling my money, my home, my expressions and my ability to live the way I want to live, without hurting another person.
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
You talk about the powers given to the government over the past 100 years, but ignore that the powers the government can exercise have been severely curtailed. The government can no longer discriminate based
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
And yet neither can I. I am free to express myself and congregate with groups and people that I want to. I can't discriminate who I hire at my business (which is my right) or dozens of other un-PC ways to live that are considered illegal because government mandates it.
The government can no longer use the power to enforce morality as a de facto compelling state interest.
Really? Wait until video games and cable channels ar
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
Perhaps the misunderstanding is my misstype of "public" corporations rather than "private" corporations. Before, states could find a corporation it liked and say "no one can compete with you." That's different from setting apart of the public world and sa
Re:I'd like to see this taken farther (Score:2)
Not eating vitamins can be detrimental to your health. Eating too many carbs can be bad. Not washing your hands could be bad. Having sex with multiple people unprotected could be bad. Polygamy laws are based on morals, not on health. Why is prostitution illegal? Health reasons? Come on. A bucket of l
How Is This Possible? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article, it seems like the elections commission certified all voting machine manufacturers despite the fact that none of them were in compliance with the law. How was the elections commission allowed to do this? Wouldn't the logical solution have been to certify none of the voting machine manufacturers until they came into compliance with the law?
Am I missing something here (e.g. time limit)?
Re:How Is This Possible? (Score:2, Insightful)
But that's just idle speculation.
Re:How Is This Possible? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but its not often that a state commission violates its own mandate so brazenly.
Re:How Is This Possible? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe what you are missing is politics. The director of the elections comission wanted to show to his superiors that he is doing something useful and tangible. Was the director/members aware of the state law? I am sure they were. Do they have the power to force vendors to open their code? Not really. All they can do is tell the vendors, "We're not going to certify you until we can review your code."
My guess is that they were put under pressure to get some sort of electronic voting system in place for the 2006 elections, and instead of doing what would be right for the people (follow the law, protect the voters, etc), they did what would be better for someone else's political career ("See what wonderful things we are doing with state money?" and "No more antiquated voting methods for our citizens!").
I'm glad the EFF called them to task on this one.
Re:How Is This Possible? (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, I'm cheering for the EFF.
I live in NC (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you familiar with the old robot saying? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Are you familiar with the old robot saying? (Score:2)
Likely does not always mean true. Especialy not in connection with electronic voting.
-- --
War can make the fundamentalists give up like 9/11 could make the US give up.
open e-voter (Score:2)
Re:open e-voter (Score:3, Interesting)
I am suprised (Score:2)
The costs of developing the voting software is far less than the costs of the underlieing OS.
Re:I am suprised (Score:2)
Won't happen... (Score:2)
Part of the problem is that the rules are way too overbearing. It would actually be a lot easier to do the job in WindowsCE (the source is available... Microsoft keeps a paper trail of developers)
-ev
Re:Won't happen... (Score:2)
In any capacity? Not a chance. But if you remove the code that came from unknown sources, then it is easy enough. I would be willing to hazard a guess that less than 1/1000 of the code was written by unknown individuals.
It would actually be a lot easier to do the job in WindowsCE (the source is available... Microsoft keeps a paper trail of developer
Re:I am suprised (Score:2)
They can run some sort of Linux (or, perhaps better, the wonderfully paranoid OpenBSD) as the underlying OS. Maybe throw together the voting software in Python (easy to read, less chance of overruns). Give the thing a nice web interface and bam!
Then wait 36 hours for Diebold to buy through a law baning open source in voting machines.
High startup costs. (Score:2)
Interesting change of pace (Score:3, Insightful)
Now they just cut out the middleman! Why mess with voters when you can just mess with a couple of voting machines?
Genius!
Not to worry (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope the EFF doesn't botch this one (Score:2)
And the election board says... (Score:2)
Shocked North Carolinian (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Shocked North Carolinian (Score:2)
When I lived in NC for a short while it was always a pleasure to see the occasional "I'm from North Carolina and I didn't vote for Strom Thurmond" bumper sticker.
Strom Thurmond was from South Carolina, not North Carolina.
There goes 'Democracy' (Score:2)
But I thought people were supposed to obey the rule of law?
I wonder (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder what it would cost to put together an open-source consortium to design the thing from the ground up. These things aren't exactly rocket science, and I bet that most of it could be done with off-the-shelf components. As for the software - I don't see that as a terrifically complicated piece, and I'm willing to bet that a few good coders could put the likes of Diebold to shame.
Re:I wonder (Score:3, Interesting)
It would take open-sourcing all the potential political scandals ("hidden requirements") that are currently just deals between friends, and making them into visible requirements for the software.
It might also involve setting up an open-source bureaucracy that's rigid enough to do all the certifications (i.e. no more extreme programming, hacking or whatever, but the 2 lines of code per day that you
Re:in the other news (Score:2)
Re:in the other news (Score:2)
(*Appologies to Kevin Smith and Chris Rock.)
Re:WTF? (Score:2)