|
Grex > Agora47 > #221: The Fall 2003 Electronic Voting Item | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 54 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 2 of 54:
| 
Dec 16 14:54 UTC 2003 |
Here's an unwrapped version of the Port Clinton News-Herald URL:
http://tinyurl.com/ldtj
|
polygon
|
|
response 3 of 54:
|
Dec 16 15:07 UTC 2003 |
"Voter receipts" are a very bad idea, if that means a piece of paper the
voter takes home, listing everybody they voted for. It would make vote
selling possible again.
Rather, the count should be based on voter-verified tangible ballots, as
is done with optical scan devices.
I don't like the touch-screen interface, at all, but touch screen machines
could output a scannable ballot that the voter could look at to verify,
and then drop in the ballot box.
That might seem like an elaborate way to mark ballots, but on the other
hand, at least in theory, there would be zero ambiguous ballots.
|
gull
|
|
response 4 of 54:
|
Dec 16 15:40 UTC 2003 |
The proposed Maryland rule is that the receipt, after being examined by
the voter, would be placed in a locked ballot box. A randomly selected
2% of the precincts would then have their results verified by counting
the paper ballots.
A major reason touchscreen-type systems are being pushed over other
systems is a computerized system is the only reasonable way to meet some
upcoming requirements for disabled people to be able to vote unassisted.
Currently the secret ballot really doesn't exist for people who are
blind, for example.
|
jp2
|
|
response 5 of 54:
|
Dec 16 18:21 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
flem
|
|
response 6 of 54:
|
Dec 16 18:46 UTC 2003 |
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/11/1620228&mode=thread&tid=103
&tid=
126&tid=99
If there's a single government agency that I think might have a clue
about electronic voting, it's the Nevada State Gaming Control Board.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 7 of 54:
|
Dec 16 19:51 UTC 2003 |
Re #5: you are incorrect. The secret ballot in elections is established
in the laws of the states.
|
jep
|
|
response 8 of 54:
|
Dec 16 20:05 UTC 2003 |
re resp:1: I think what I'm seeing is a guaranteed complaint about any
election in the future: "We should have won. The vote was fixed by
computer!" This type of complaint is going to be used by both sides.
On Grex, I've seen the pre-complaint 3 or 4 times, always stating the
Republican side will abuse the system and unfairly take elections. It
seems obvious to me that there will be complaints along these lines if
Republicans win *any* elections. I don't imagine, giving that tone
already, that there will be much real discussion about 2004 election
results or methods on Grex.
|
jp2
|
|
response 9 of 54:
|
Dec 16 20:12 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 10 of 54:
|
Dec 16 20:48 UTC 2003 |
It certainly does! And the "secret ballot" is not "poor policy", in my
opinion. Laws give us (and take away) "rights". How else can rights
be established?
|
jp2
|
|
response 11 of 54:
|
Dec 16 21:04 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 12 of 54:
|
Dec 16 21:08 UTC 2003 |
Somebody made it up. They were people that wanted certain rights, and they
said so in word and deed. That's how they got the rights they wanted.
|
jp2
|
|
response 13 of 54:
|
Dec 16 21:10 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 54:
|
Dec 16 21:39 UTC 2003 |
Of course not. Who said anything about "mistakes"? The Supreme Court
established a right that was previously unsettled. How about not putting
words in other people's mouths?
|
willcome
|
|
response 15 of 54:
|
Dec 16 23:20 UTC 2003 |
How about not putting babies in garbage cans?
|
tod
|
|
response 16 of 54:
|
Dec 16 23:29 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 17 of 54:
|
Dec 16 23:45 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 18 of 54:
|
Dec 17 02:51 UTC 2003 |
Why not? The Constitution gives the Court that power. You apparently do
not know that everything that is and will be possible is not mentioned
in the Constitution. Hence only the guidelines and principles of the
Constitution are there to guide the Court in resolving new questions.
That is what they did.
You sure make yourself sound stupid with insisting that you "win" in
every response.
|
jp2
|
|
response 19 of 54:
|
Dec 17 03:12 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
willcome
|
|
response 20 of 54:
|
Dec 17 03:49 UTC 2003 |
(trolls)
|
gull
|
|
response 21 of 54:
|
Dec 17 14:29 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:8: Well, when the major electronic voting machine companies are
controlled by Republican partisans, and people in high positions in
those companies talk about hoping to deliver a victory to the Republican
candidate, don't people have a right to be suspicious? Espcially
considering those companies have repeatedly refused to let anyone
examine their source code or test their machines?
How would you feel if the situation were reversed, and Democrats were
controlling the voting systems and refusing to let anyone else see how
they were run?
|
jep
|
|
response 22 of 54:
|
Dec 17 20:14 UTC 2003 |
re resp:21: David, believe it or not, I am no more in favor of
Republicans taking elections through voting machine fraud than you. I
would not gain from such a scenario, and don't believe the country
would gain. I am inclined toward the right, and to vote for
Republicans, but yet I believe there are principles more important than
victory for conservatives and the Republican Party.
If the situation were reversed for you, do you think you'd be in favor
of the Democratic Party stealing elections? I would hope and expect
not.
|
other
|
|
response 23 of 54:
|
Dec 17 20:47 UTC 2003 |
The fear held by rational people concerned about this issue,
generally speaking, is not that the Republicans will rig elections,
but that there will be no way to determine with certainty that they
didn't. Until and unless this concern is addressed properly and
ubiquitously, electronic voting should not be adopted.
|
twenex
|
|
response 24 of 54:
|
Dec 17 20:49 UTC 2003 |
In the interests of fairness, perhaps one should say "...certainty
that they or the Democrats didn't.".
|
other
|
|
response 25 of 54:
|
Dec 17 20:52 UTC 2003 |
You could just as well say that, but it is adequately implied.
|
tod
|
|
response 26 of 54:
|
Dec 17 21:01 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|