Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by yg17, Oct 30, 2006.
If this is the world's greatest democracy, goddess help us. You couldn't even run a tea-party in Massachusetts without it getting out of hand.
I watched a CNN special on electronic voting systems yesterday. One analyst (sorry, don't remember who at the moment) they had on the program hit the nail:
1. The notion that electronic voting systems will work flawlessly on the first day, deployed without much thought on the issue or testing of the equipment, is silly.
2. The notion that we even need an electronic voting system to use once or twice a year is questionable. Paper ballets have been used successfully for many years.
They also described the situation in Ohio, which is pretty disturbing. The state was given several million dollars by the federal government to deploy an electronic voting system which was in turn deployed hastily, without any studies, and was discovered to be ridiculously hackable and unreliable. Nobody was willing to accept responsibility and instead the blame was placed on the poll workers. Disgusting.
you think anyone actually voted for that?
I expect it was a show of spoons.
Oh come now. It's been reported that it was one of you Brits that decided to start poking people's eyes out.
With such rigorous security and, whew.... a screen that asks "Are you sure you want to delete this record?" how could we possibly question the outcomes?
Why oh why do away with the paper trail? I can understand getting rid of punch cards with those ridiculous hanging chads, but this is ridiculous!
It's good to see that one of the most important aspects of the Democratic experiment will fail because of a computer glitch. What a Civil War could not break fails because someone can't write good code.
I refuse to use an electronic voting machine if one is so provided, especially in lieu of a piece of paper and a pen to circle in a dot.
oh, but the Republican experiment is progressing smoothly as planned...
maybe they can
How do "electronics" get "miscalibrated" with the "video screen", resulting in incorrect ballots?
That's like me opening Camino, clicking on my MacRumors bookmark, and having Bill O'Reilly's website come up instead.
What the hell kind of operating system are those people running these things on, anyway? Is it proprietary? If so, it makes Windows sound like a model of accuracy and reliability.
Unless, of course, this is all deliberate............
Looks like it's shaping up to be another electoral fiasco.
no no -- that's the net neutrality issue.
Funny how making ATM systems that keep a paper record of every financial transaction is not beyond the skills of Diebold.
i do count my money more carefully when i see the diebold name on them...
I'm certainly not happy about this. There has been talk about how screwed up the system is for years, but since the people who stand to benefit the most from it failing or being messed with are the ones responsible for fixing it, I don't see much hope any time soon. Especially since I've seen what happens when things go wrong first hand. Re: WA State Gov. race '04. Thanks to voter fraud, the Dem had to push for 2 recounts for them to declare her the (correct) winner. Used to think it was all tinfoil hat stuff, but there it was.
At this point, I think the Dems are going to make plenty of headway, fraud or not... but if they don't do as well as they should have, or especially if they do worse, I'll join the rest of you in Canada.
The problems extend far beyond a simple computer glitch. There are hardware issues, a lack of thorough research and planning, lack of storage space for the equipment, lack of security, lack of training for poll workers, lack of asset management, and to top it off, a lack of accountability.
Have you never used a touchscreen at a grocery store or a palm pilot that has lost it's calibration? You touch one spot on the screen but it registers somewhere completely differently. Probably the same principal here. Somehow the sensors in the screen get mis-assigned to another location on the screen requiring re-calibration. Of course on a Palm Pilot it is about 3 touches to the screen (center, upper left, lower right) and it's done. Seems a 15 step process is almost meant to be confusing...
Almost makes me wonder if they always seem to go out of cal so that a particular spot (say the democrats button) seems to mysteriously always register as a hit on the opponent... but a company that has opened it's source and provides a clearly legible paper trail would surely have the calibration under control. Thank God thats who we have.... oh wait...
you're thinking of it wrong. whrere some see problems, others see opportunity.
in chinese, the word for right-wing munchwad and asshat are the same. or something like that.
Yep, kind of like that. Or in some cases when a machine is hacked, it's a matter of an apparant vote for one candidate that's simply counted towards a different candidate. Sort of like backwards day, when up really means down.
Diebold must either
A: Hire the worst ****ing engineers on the planet
B: Be conspiring against one side or the other
So which is it here folks? These people can't even get a simple voting machine right. How in the hell can we trust them with our votes, let alone our own personal money?
The code involved in a voting system is so simple, they could train chimpanzees to do it. Hell, even the dumbass in chief could code it. "Candidate A has 145 votes, and candidate B has 132 votes. Someone just voted for candidate A, now he has 146 votes!" Not that difficult. Granted, I know there's more to it, such as getting the hardware to interface with the software, but the underlying algorithm for counting votes is so damn simple, no one could screw it up.
It also doesn't help that every time I go to vote, the election workers are little old ladies who probably haven't used a computer in their life. If we're going to switch to computerized voting, we need to switch to somewhat computer literate election workers
Okay, I get it, thanks. I think it might've been a little clearer if they'd said the touchscreen interface loses its X-Y plotting calibration, or something like that. I thought they meant the problem was on the other end, so that you punch up the candidate you want on the screen but something else gets written to the card.
If this is such a big deal problem, why can't Diebold's machines be programmed to use real, hard-wired buttons? They could show you your choices, one at a time, on the screen, and you could push A for one candidate, B for another and C for a third, or YES for an issue and NO against it. (Don't know how you'd handle write-ins, though.)
I mean, even your bank gives you the option of using the keypad ENTER or CANCEL keys instead of the touchscreen ones.
i went to get cash last night and ended up voting republican. wonder how much that's gonna cost me.
Scott Adams has some fun/amusing thoughts on the voting machines... thought some of you might enjoy.