H.R.5036 - Funding of paper ballots

[agi|e]

I support this bill because I don't trust our elections to paperless electronic balloting. Interesting to note that today voting on the bill showed that Democrats overwhelmingly voting for the bill and Republicans voted against it.

Why should the Republicans be against a verifiable system of voting?

Their primary argument from the Republicans appears to be cost to do this but I don't really believe this is the issue. I personally would be willing to pay to go back to the old system where I mark a ballot by hand.

http://www.alternet.org/election08/81163/

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-188

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=summary&bill=h110-5036

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:28:./temp/~c1106Q2jlm:e0:

[Sutterkane]

do you really think using paper ballots is going to cut down on voter fraud?

i'd also like your opinion on if you think hanging chads and dimpled cards count as votes.

[BlackThoughT]

Do you remember the 2000 elections? Thats pretty bad stuff there with your paper ballots.
plus, saves paper, you surely cant be against that!

[Cyberdemon]

Why should the Republicans be against a verifiable system of voting?

Cost, I imagine. The bill makes the federal government responsible for reimbursing states for

a) the costs of conversion from a full-electronic system, which seems like a logistical minefield if they're really trying to do it by the general November elections, and

b) the "reasonable documented costs" of audits and recounts that would happen just as often with a paperful system and would normally be paid for by the state doing them. One of the kerfluffles over the proposed MI/FL recounts in the Dem primary was whether the national party would pick up the tab, which the states didn't really want to do.

[agi|e]

Cost, I imagine. The bill makes the federal government responsible for reimbursing states for

a) the costs of conversion from a full-electronic system, which seems like a logistical minefield if they're really trying to do it by the general November elections, and

b) the "reasonable documented costs" of audits and recounts that would happen just as often with a paperful system and would normally be paid for by the state doing them. One of the kerfluffles over the proposed MI/FL recounts in the Dem primary was whether the national party would pick up the tab, which the states didn't really want to do.

Well the highest estimate I heard during todays Congressional hearing was 600 million. Compare that to 8 BILLION per month spent on the War on Terror.

The ability to guarantee a verifiable honest election is the cornerstone of a solid democracy. I don't think 600 million to help secure our elections is unreasonable.

"Do you remember the 2000 elections? Thats pretty bad stuff there with your paper ballots.
plus, saves paper, you surely cant be against that!"

Paper ballots ensure that we have a hard copy in case a recount is necessary. May not be perfect but it at least lessens the chance of an election being completely stolen. A few miscounted votes happening in a hard copy situation is better than losing millions of votes in the case of a electronic machine hacking.


do you really think using paper ballots is going to cut down on voter fraud?

i'd also like your opinion on if you think hanging chads and dimpled cards count as votes.

The answer to your first question is that I do believe a paper system or at least an optical scan system backed by paper is better than just a strictly electronic machine system. So yes it would cut down on voter fraud.

chads and dimpled cards

The percentage of these types of votes are small. You are talking about a tiny percentage of mis-votes that occur as the result of mechanical failure.
The system of paper ballots worked for many many years just fine. It's more of a pain in the ass to count them but you get a system that is more secure and less susceptible to tampering. Plus the ability to verify elections with recounts.

[agi|e]

"The Iowa Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to appropriate $4.9 million to be spent on replacing touch-screen direct-recording electronic voting systems, or DREs, to new optical-scan voting machines.

With the new optical-scan voting machines, voters will fill in bubbles for the candidates they want, then feed their ballot into the machine, which reads the ballot using "dark-mark logic."

"With touch-screen DREs, the vote is counted electronically and never touches paper," said Sen. Jeff Danielson, D-Cedar Falls, who floor-managed the bill.

He said the benefit of having a paper trail is, if the state ever needed to conduct a recount, it could do so because the votes are backed up on paper.

Ultimately, Danielson said it will "raise the voters' trust level" in state elections."

Full article at website below:

Source: http://media.www.iowastatedaily.com/media/storage/paper818/news/2008/03/14/News/Senate.Approves.PaperBacked.Voting.System-3269241.shtml

[Cyberdemon]

Well the highest estimate I heard during todays Congressional hearing was 600 million. Compare that to 8 BILLION per month spent on the War on Terror.

The ability to guarantee a verifiable honest election is the cornerstone of a solid democracy. I don't think 600 million to help secure our elections is unreasonable.

There are all sorts of things in the budget that aren't as expensive as military spending. That doesn't make them cheap or make Congress more likely to want to pay for them where they feel that the states should do it and the benefits of federal intervention are insufficient to justify the cost.

The ability to guarantee a verifiable honest election is the cornerstone of a solid democracy. I don't think 600 million to help secure our elections is unreasonable.

Write your representatives. I'm not the one who voted against it.

[Sutterkane]

Well the highest estimate I heard during todays Congressional hearing was 600 million. Compare that to 8 BILLION per month spent on the War on Terror.


That is still 600 million that can go elsewhere. How much we're spending on military services has nothing to do with this topic, AT ALL. How about we compare it to the 129 billion we spend on social welfare monthly?


The ability to guarantee a verifiable honest election is the cornerstone of a solid democracy. I don't think 600 million to help secure our elections is unreasonable.


You're trying to say we're like Cuba or something. No system is foolproof by the way. There is plenty of voter fraud even in a paper system:


Paper ballots ensure that we have a hard copy in case a recount is necessary. May not be perfect but it at least lessens the chance of an election being completely stolen. A few miscounted votes happening in a hard copy situation is better than losing millions of votes in the case of a electronic machine hacking.

The answer to your first question is that I do believe a paper system or at least an optical scan system backed by paper is better than just a strictly electronic machine system. So yes it would cut down on voter fraud.

A few miscounted votes? I seem to recall some people stating that there were entire boxes of paper ballots that were lost in the 2000 election in Florida. If someone wants to mess with election results, it is honestly probably much easier to do it with a paper ballot system. I seem to remember some pretty sour grapes over it too. "A few miscounted votes" is still an inaccurate count and can make a huge difference in an election, especially with one using an electoral college the way we do (which is another can of worms completely). By the way, you're still using a machine to count votes for you in a paper ballot system. At least with an electronic system, there are greater security measures to go through in order to manipulate votes, not just any Joe Schmoe can do it.


chads and dimpled cards

The percentage of these types of votes are small. You are talking about a tiny percentage of mis-votes that occur as the result of mechanical failure.
The system of paper ballots worked for many many years just fine. It's more of a pain in the ass to count them but you get a system that is more secure and less susceptible to tampering. Plus the ability to verify elections with recounts.

You are still talking about a loss of valid votes here. It seems to me that if implemented properly, an electronic system is far superior to a paper system. You don't NEED recounts, because the system is already more accurate than what any human hand count can do. There isn't any grey area with what is a valid vote and it's much cheaper (and better for the environment) to implement.

[BlackThoughT]

Paper ballots ensure that we have a hard copy in case a recount is necessary. May not be perfect but it at least lessens the chance of an election being completely stolen. A few miscounted votes happening in a hard copy situation is better than losing millions of votes in the case of a electronic machine hacking.


were you hiding in a cave during the 2000 elections? How long did we have to wait for that to be resolved? All because of "a few miscounted votes" and sutters boxes and boxes of "lost" paper and absentee ballots. And stop making everything about the big bad republicans. People probably voted against it because its a bad idea.

[dys]

Sutter stole the boxes? Dirty (R).

[BlackThoughT]

way funnier than what I meant to say, fuckin crazy sutter.

[phate]

No system is foolproof by the way.

......

You are still talking about a loss of valid votes here. It seems to me that if implemented properly, an electronic system is far superior to a paper system. You don't NEED recounts, because the system is already more accurate than what any human hand count can do. There isn't any grey area with what is a valid vote and it's much cheaper (and better for the environment) to implement.

I don't disagree with the majority of your points, but I have to express my concern with an electronic system of recording votes. First, while it may be very difficult to tamper with, we all know that no system is foolproof to hacking. Second, the issue of a recount is an problem. You said yourself that no system is foolproof-if we needed a recount with electronic voter machines, there would be nothing to check.

I'm not saying a paper ballot would be better or more difficult to fudge, only that electronic systems would be vulnerable as well.

[dys]

The money proposed for changing it back to paper would be well spent towards a redundant backup of the main electronic system. Done.

[Sutterkane]

good call

Dys/Sutter 2012

[dys]

"We represent both the little and big people"

[agi|e]

The money proposed for changing it back to paper would be well spent towards a redundant backup of the main electronic system. Done.

A redundant backup?

lol

What good is a backup of a rigged election? You just verify the false data. The only way to verify an election is with a HARD COPY.

Seriously I think some of you people argue opposite just because it's me. There really isn't any cogent argument against an optical scan system backed up by paper. Maybe you should go live in a society like China for awhile to find out how important it is to live in a free society. If safe elections aren't a top priority then what is?

[dys]

MAYBE I'LL GO LIVE IN CHINAZ THENNN!!!!111

[Stayne]

Well... there are good points on both sides of the argument.

On the threat side, when the CEO of one of the major voter machine companies (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-12-05-diebold-money-to-bush_x.htm) expresses his commitment to turn out votes for a particular candidate (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE2DA103CF931A25756C0A9629C8B 63), we've got problems if there is no paper trail and no authority to check the machine's software.

On the cost side, why can't the machine keep a paper backup (on something like a receipt paper roll) and even print a receipt/ticket out for the voter? The electronic vote would be the primary count, but the paper trail is available if needed. Or are gas-pumps just too technologically advanced to be considered as an inspiration for a possible solution?

[Sutterkane]

What good is a backup of a rigged election? You just verify the false data. The only way to verify an election is with a HARD COPY.

Seriously I think some of you people argue opposite just because it's me. There really isn't any cogent argument against an optical scan system backed up by paper. Maybe you should go live in a society like China for awhile to find out how important it is to live in a free society. If safe elections aren't a top priority then what is?

as usual, you're completely missing the point and not listening to what anyone else is saying because you think your argument is the right and only choice.

If the system is good enough and the computers are calculating properly, you don't NEED to verify the data because it should already be correct.

Also, you are making it out like you can't rig an election with paper ballots. In fact, it is much, MUCH easier to rig one with paper ballots. Why not take the money you would use to fund the paper ballots and use it to better the electronic system?

I actually like Stayne's idea a lot. This way you have a combination of both systems. You could even do a copy for the voting office and one for the voter, and then you have 3 places you can check for correct results.

[agi|e]

as usual, you're completely missing the point and not listening to what anyone else is saying because you think your argument is the right and only choice.

If the system is good enough and the computers are calculating properly, you don't NEED to verify the data because it should already be correct.

Also, you are making it out like you can't rig an election with paper ballots. In fact, it is much, MUCH easier to rig one with paper ballots. Why not take the money you would use to fund the paper ballots and use it to better the electronic system?

I actually like Stayne's idea a lot. This way you have a combination of both systems. You could even do a copy for the voting office and one for the voter, and then you have 3 places you can check for correct results.


Please explain to me how for example you make 2 or 3 million votes vanish or appear using a paper system. Doesn't it seem obvious that it would be far easier to add or subtract a few digits to the numbers electronically than it would be to make 2-3 million paper ballots appear or disappear? Cmon be reasonable.

As far as Stayne's suggestion a computer system backed by paper is better then a DRE with no paper trail so at least you admit that.

[MightyCawdoR]

Please explain to me how for example you make 2 or 3 million votes vanish or appear using a paper system. Doesn't it seem obvious that it would be far easier to add or subtract a few digits to the numbers electronically than it would be to make 2-3 million paper ballots appear or disappear? Cmon be reasonable.

I'll take fire for 200 Alex. Elections can be rigged, look at some of the Latin American elections where ballot boxes have disappeared or been stuffed, hell I'd bet the same has happened somewhere here in the states at one time or another. You are looking for a foolproof way for an election vote to be counted and other than everyone visiting one spot and voting under very extremely controlled circumstances, which is something that just isn't realistic, there isn't a foolproof way that I can tell.

[FluxCapacitor]

Please explain to me how for example you make 2 or 3 million votes vanish or appear using a paper system. Doesn't it seem obvious that it would be far easier to add or subtract a few digits to the numbers electronically than it would be to make 2-3 million paper ballots appear or disappear? Cmon be reasonable.

As far as Stayne's suggestion a computer system backed by paper is better then a DRE with no paper trail so at least you admit that.

Seriously how many times do we have to say the 2000 elections. Paper ballots can disappear just as easy. You act like paper ballots are indestructible...

[leg]

At the very least I think we should incorporate electronic machines into the voting process. Sure, having paper printouts for backup is fine but having an electronic system gives us much more flexibility (and I think security) than a paper only system.

Sure it can be hacked into, but we can have one hell of a redundancy system in place to prevent this. People could even view their votes online for verification.

[agi|e]

Seriously how many times do we have to say the 2000 elections. Paper ballots can disappear just as easy. You act like paper ballots are indestructible...

Try this: Accuracy AND paper trail.


http://www.avantetech.com/products/elections/dre/


"The DRE systems offered by AVANTE feature redundant ballot result storage devices whose data can be verified against voting machine printed "cut-and-drop" paper records previously verified by the voter. The records are then dropped into and secured inside a uniquely designed voter verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) printer ballot box. Systems meet or exceed Federal ADA (Accessibility) standards outlined in HAVA EAC voting system standards."

AVANTE CENTRAL COUNT
OPTICAL VOTE-TRAKKER

Digital image capturing and pixel-counting tabulation system

Total Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Solution:

Designed for use in counting ballots after poll closing at the precincts, at the counting centers and Headquarters.

COTS document imaging scanner with proven reliability and imaging capabilities.

Internal UPS for computer.

Optional ballot box with lock-and-seal.

Role-based access control to operation of the system.

Designed to meet EAC 2005 and 2007 VVSG security and accuracy requirements.

Meets and Exceeds Current and Proposed Voting System Standards with
Unparalleled Accuracy, Security and Transparency:

Patented and proven automatic scaling to account for paper shrinkage and expansion due to moisture, wrinkle and folded paper, and other minor paper anomalies.

The first optical scan system to meet the requirement of less than one error in 1,500,000 marks.
Patented and proven automatic rejections of double counting using machine-readable randomly generated unique ballot identifier.

Patented and proven automatic rejections of faked ballots using machine-readable randomly generated unique ballot identifier.

The first system to automatically extract digital image of the ballots having any over-voted contests for ease of canvassing.

The first system to automatically extract digital image of the ballot having under-voted contests for ease of canvassing.

The first system to provide automatic assessment of light markings and other anomalies without re-scanning.

The first system to use write-once-read-many (WORM) CD-R/DVD signed by observers/officials before allowing use of transfer media to protect data security.

Security and Role-Based System Access Control and Management:
Requiring two operators log-ins to activate system and close poll.

Role-based access control.
Images are hashed with randomly generated unique ballot identifier for unparalleled security management.


1. Cost-effective

a. Purchase cost is one-third
b. Transition/continuing cost is lower because one-third or fewer PBOS units are needed
c. Equipment lasts two to four times longer
d. Minimal voter and poll-worker training
e. Lower operational cost -- PBOS equipment is easily programmed/maintained by bipartisan BOE staff, so vendors won’t have to do the work. (The secret software in evote systems means that only the vendor knows their own system, only they can provide technical help, and they can gouge the counties with high prices because no other company can do the work.)

Source:http://www.wheresthepaper.org/ChoosePBOS.htm

[theCops]

I'm pretty sure there's been an amendment to the Help America Vote act of 2002 which requires electronic voting machines to produce a paper trail in the form of a receipt.

http://www.fec.gov/hava/hava.htm

If that's the case, what need is there to conduct entirely paper ballots? That's very tedious and isn't any less prone to error or corruption, as other people have said. No one wants to go through thousands of ballots with a hanging chad looming over them if a machine can do it. On top of that, I gather it would cost even more money to revert to this.

Why should the Republicans be against a verifiable system of voting?

I think you're operating on the suspicion that the next presidential election is subject to being rigged or already has been. That being said, a paper trail is something we ought to have and would make the process more accurate and legitimate.

[agi|e]

I'm pretty sure there's been an amendment to the Help America Vote act of 2002 which requires electronic voting machines to produce a paper trail in the form of a receipt.

http://www.fec.gov/hava/hava.htm

If that's the case, what need is there to conduct entirely paper ballots? That's very tedious and isn't any less prone to error or corruption, as other people have said. No one wants to go through thousands of ballots with a hanging chad looming over them if a machine can do it. On top of that, I gather it would cost even more money to revert to this.



I think you're operating on the suspicion that the next presidential election is subject to being rigged or already has been. That being said, a paper trail is something we ought to have and would make the process more accurate and legitimate.

A method that combines the best of both types of systems is the best answer.

H.R.5036

"The measure was designed to ensure that every vote is properly counted. Voters in all or parts of 20 states including New Jersey now cast ballots electronically without backup paper verification, according to the bill's sponsor, Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J."

Source: http://oohnuance.blogspot.com/2008/04/no-money-for-switching-to-paper-ballots.html

Help America Vote act of 2002

You are right that the 2002 Act states that there has to be a paper trail. So why do 20 states not have it? Apparently we have 20 states that are in direct violation of the law. Perhaps this is the reason H.R.5036 - Funding of paper ballots was proposed.

Regardless apparently H.R.5036 has just been defeated. I was thinking when I saw the vote that it could be resubmitted later but apparently this is not the case. At least it can't be resubmitted this year.

"There's a good diary up on DailyKos this morning summarizing what's going on. Yesterday, the bill failed to get a 2/3 majority in the House, and as a result was effectively killed for this year. The reason it required a 2/3 majority is because in order to force consideration yesterday, the House would have to suspend the rules, and such motion requires a 2/3 majority to pass. Hence, the Bill failed on procedural vote for consideration which was effectively bundled with the motion to pass the bill under the House rules.

According to the radio this morning, a main reason Rep. Holt's bill failed was that the Bush Administration thinks it is too expensive, and urged all Republicans to oppose its passage. The number that was considered too expensive? $600 million. That translates into about $4.80 per voter, assuming the same turnout as 2004 (it will be less per voter if turnout is higher in 2008, as it is likely to be). The war in Iraq will have cost us about $600 billion (perhaps a bit more) by November. That is $4,800 per voter.

The Bush Administration and their House Republican allies are saying that the security of Iraq is worth one thousand times more than the security of our vote."

Source: http://leesburgtomorrow.blogspot.com/2008/04/your-vote-isnt-worth-480.html

[theCops]

You are right that the 2002 Act states that there has to be a paper trail. So why do 20 states not have it? Apparently we have 20 states that are in direct violation of the law. Perhaps this is the reason H.R.5036 - Funding of paper ballots was proposed.

It applies the same way emissions laws apply to new cars. Older cars don't become outlawed when new emission standards become law.

[AGT-Shady]

Instead of the ridiculously sensational comparisons to Cuba and China and the insiuations that voter fraud happens all the time, why don't we skip to the myriad of verifiable voter fraud in federal elections that agile seems to be so concerned about safeguarding against.

Talk about your war against "terror". :rolleyes:

[Sutterkane]

Blogs for a source. Nice.

I love the spin in the articles though. The administration is hardly saying that it is 1000 times more important. It is just 1000x more expensive. That's like looking at the DOT budget and saying that it's x times more important to have safe roads than have a "secure election".

Also, 4800 dollars per voter is inaccurate too, as there are plenty of people who don't pay that much in taxes. As I've stated multiple times before, the rich people of this country are the ones paying taxes.

Since we're pulling from all sorts of sources today, here's a conversation between myself and Dys 2 days ago where I predicted this thread in full:

Rob says:
i love agile's new thread
D1 says:
i was wondernig how long it would take him to mention iraq, he didn't disappoint
Rob says:
even cyberdemon is on the other side of the argument, you just know he's going to get cornered like he always does
Rob says:
and then of course, he'll keep picking out articles and shit talking about how it's his way or the highway

[agi|e]

Blogs for a source. Nice.

I love the spin in the articles though. The administration is hardly saying that it is 1000 times more important. It is just 1000x more expensive. That's like looking at the DOT budget and saying that it's x times more important to have safe roads than have a "secure election".

Also, 4800 dollars per voter is inaccurate too, as there are plenty of people who don't pay that much in taxes. As I've stated multiple times before, the rich people of this country are the ones paying taxes.

Since we're pulling from all sorts of sources today, here's a conversation between myself and Dys 2 days ago where I predicted this thread in full:

Rob says:
i love agile's new thread
D1 says:
i was wondernig how long it would take him to mention iraq, he didn't disappoint
Rob says:
even cyberdemon is on the other side of the argument, you just know he's going to get cornered like he always does
Rob says:
and then of course, he'll keep picking out articles and shit talking about how it's his way or the highway

So your answer to my post is a conversation between you and dys? Pretty typical. Instead of adequately addressing the points you make a personal attack. Again if this thread had been started by Stayne you probably would have been all over it as the best thing since sliced bread. Just goes to prove you have just about zero credibility in the Academy at this point.

Your point on the cost is also ridiculous of course since anyone here can see the huge discrepancies in the cost of the war vs. securing our elections.
Try harder next time.

Why don't we just cut to the chase. Do you or do you not want a paper trail for elections? Yes or no.

[theCops]

In fairness, using blogs as your sources is pretty telling of your fact-checking. people's writing in blogs are held to absolutely no standard of truth, fairness, or accuracy.

[BlackThoughT]

Just goes to prove you have just about zero credibility in the Academy at this point.

I wonder how many people think the same about you with your countless threads and posts over the past few months

[Sutterkane]

Why don't we just cut to the chase. Do you or do you not want a paper trail for elections? Yes or no.

Finally, a decent question from you without trying to relate every problem to the Iraq war.

No. Not if it costs 600 million dollars. We have enough retarded spending in our government as it is. I feel an electronic system works just as well if not better; it saves time and money and delivers an accurate count.

[agi|e]

I wonder how many people think the same about you with your countless threads and posts over the past few months

lol

Let's do some math:

BlackThoughT 2444 Posts - Average 2.37 posts per day. (With a large percentage in the Cesspool)

agi|e 861 Posts - Average .92 posts per day.


In fairness, using blogs as your sources is pretty telling of your fact-checking. people's writing in blogs are held to absolutely no standard of truth, fairness, or accuracy.

This is true but you have to agree that the majority of my sources quoted are not from other forums or blogs. Having said this do you dispute the information in the blog? If so post the parts you dispute and then make your case.

Finally, a decent question from you without trying to relate every problem to the Iraq war.

No. Not if it costs 600 million dollars. We have enough retarded spending in our government as it is. I feel an electronic system works just as well if not better; it saves time and money and delivers an accurate count.

Fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion. The point of comparing the spending to war expenditures is relevant because contrary to what you said the amount someone spends on something DOES indicate the priority they put on that item. How could it not be so? And if this is true then it's obvious that a top priority of the current administration is the War in Iraq and the War on Terror. To the point that it is bankrupting us. If you want a real disaster then consider what will happen if we go into another depression. So the irony is that The War on Terror might actually start an even worse catastrophe. All so a few people can get rich on government and military contracts associated with the war.

So in their eyes you are the perfect citizen. You trust the election process without a paper trail and blindly follow wherever you are lead by the mainstream media.

[agi|e]

Instead of the ridiculously sensational comparisons to Cuba and China and the insiuations that voter fraud happens all the time, why don't we skip to the myriad of verifiable voter fraud in federal elections that agile seems to be so concerned about safeguarding against.

Talk about your war against "terror". :rolleyes:

If this is just my paranoid delusion then why are there so many supporters of bills right now that address this issue of having a paper trail in elections? I suppose all these members of Congress and the Senate are delusional too right? And of course you in your smug little hole in the wall are the right one and everyone else is wrong.

:rolleyes:

Ever hear the phrase "prevention is the best medicine"?

Watergate-Iran Contra Scandal etc. all prove that there is always a real threat of corruption in government. To ignore this is against common sense.

[BlackThoughT]

lol

Let's do some math:

BlackThoughT 2444 Posts - Average 2.37 posts per day. (With a large percentage in the Cesspool)

agi|e 861 Posts - Average .92 posts per day.


that whoosh you hear is the sound of my point going WAY over your head

And of course you in your smug little hole in the wall are the right one and everyone else is wrong.


Agile, you continue to suprise me with the amount of irony you've poured into your posts, in this thread in particular.

[agi|e]

that whoosh you hear is the sound of my point going WAY over your head



Agile, you continue to suprise me with the amount of irony you've poured into your posts, in this thread in particular.


lol

ya you really got me there bud

[theCops]

I didn't pay an extra $4,800 in taxes on top of what I already pay as a war tax, so your blog guy is just ranting about BU$HCo and putting words in his mouth for good measure.

You want a real shocker? do the math on the upcoming baby boomer retirements. $600 billion will be peanuts after the baby boomers start retiring en masse, which has already begun this year. We're not approaching $10 trillion in debt because we're in a war. That's an ahistorical assertion on your part. If anything, poverty has a causal connection to war, not the other way around.

This is a good read on the current state and the future of the US economy:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040217_book426.pdf

As I said before, measures are already in place for a paper trail in electronic voting machines, so what sense could it possibly make to go back to paper voting; to revert to something just as prone to corruption and error as electronic voting machines?

How is an electronic voting machine breaking down an "emergency", as the bill's title puts it?

States have the right to control their elections via the constitution. Allowing the federal government to gain control over the process would be a very significant negation of the seperation of powers. This bill would have given them that control. Should the federal government have complete oversight on the means concerning and outcome of federal elections? No, it should be and is a joint process.

Paper ballots are still prone to wholesale fraud or tampering. Optical scanners which are used to count votes are prone to the same problems as other electronic voting machines, ie. hacking so this bill wouldn't take electronic error out of the process. And no one wants to break out the tylenol and a calculator with men in suits looming over them for days on end.

[agi|e]

I didn't pay an extra $4,800 in taxes on top of what I already pay as a war tax, so your blog guy is just ranting about BU$HCo and putting words in his mouth for good measure.

You want a real shocker? do the math on the upcoming baby boomer retirements. $600 billion will be peanuts after the baby boomers start retiring en masse, which has already begun this year. We're not approaching $10 trillion in debt because we're in a war. That's an ahistorical assertion on your part. If anything, poverty has a causal connection to war, not the other way around.

This is a good read on the current state and the future of the US economy:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040217_book426.pdf

As I said before, measures are already in place for a paper trail in electronic voting machines, so what sense could it possibly make to go back to paper voting; to revert to something just as prone to corruption and error as electronic voting machines?

How is an electronic voting machine breaking down an "emergency", as the bill's title puts it?

States have the right to control their elections via the constitution. Allowing the federal government to gain control over the process would be a very significant negation of the seperation of powers. This bill would have given them that control. Should the federal government have complete oversight on the means concerning and outcome of federal elections? No, it should be and is a joint process.

Paper ballots are still prone to wholesale fraud or tampering. Optical scanners which are used to count votes are prone to the same problems as other electronic voting machines, ie. hacking so this bill wouldn't take electronic error out of the process. And no one wants to break out the tylenol and a calculator with men in suits looming over them for days on end.

We will all pay eventually. Just because you didn't pay it this year in your taxes doesn't mean the bill payment goes away into thin air.

lol

Measures are in place supposedly to use a paper trail but making a law and actually implementing it are not necessariliy the same thing as you mentioned before. Obviously if 20 states don't have it yet something is wrong.

As far as the "exempt" clause idea you mentioned earlier:

"It applies the same way emissions laws apply to new cars. Older cars don't become outlawed when new emission standards become law."

doesn't apply here. This would be like saying that after slavery was abolished the people who still had them could keep them.

"How is an electronic voting machine breaking down an "emergency", as the bill's title puts it?"

H.R. 5036: Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008

It's an emergency measure to make sure that states have enough money to implement the law guaranteeing a paper trail.

As far as tampering there are tons of websites that discuss the potential problems with these electronic machines. There was even a television special a while back which showed how easy it would be to hack into them.

"In a paper last month, "Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine," (available at http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/) Princeton computer professor Edward W. Felten and two graduate students Ariel J. Feldman and J. Alex Halderman discussed a common Diebold machine. They showed that anyone who gets access to the machine and its memory card for literally a minute or two could easily install the group's invisible vote-stealing software on the machine. (Poll workers and others have unsupervised access for much longer periods.) Changing all logs, counters, and associated records to reflect the bogus vote count that it generates, the software installed by the infected memory card (similar to a floppy disk) would be undetectable. In fact, the software would delete itself at the end of Election Day.

Even more ominously the memory cards that are used to install this or similar vote-stealing software can act like a virus and infect many other machines if the bad cards are used to amend these machines. This is normal practice with pre- and post-election updates, and no attachment to a network is necessary. Moreover, since memory cards are removed from all voting machines in a given region and inserted into a single machine that accumulates the votes for the region, something worse is possible. "By planting a virus far enough in advance, [a hacker] can ensure that a significant number of machines can steal votes on Election Day" even if he has access to only one or a few machines."



"With proprietary software and no independent paper trail, there are unfortunately grounds to doubt election results, especially when they're close."


Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2507434&page=1
Hopefully abc news is a good enough source for you.

This should frighten the hell out of any normal US citizen.

If you want to start a separate thread for the deficit, baby boomers etc. go ahead. It's a good topic for discussion.

[theCops]

The point of that comparison is to inform me that Bu$h and friends think my vote is worthless because everyone knows the next election doesn't count because this overreaching and unlettered bill failed, and here's the calculation I've made to prove it, and i'll receive the bill for his jew-sponsored imperialist endeavors and I should be outraged.

ATM manufacturers are prone to the same shortfall, hacking. Do you see a little old man in supermarkets sitting at a table with a calculator, bag of cash, and a little strip of paper a mile long leading into a garbage bin as a result of this, with 2 armed guards behind him at attention, just in case the ATM breaks? No, and the reason is human beings are only so good at getting numbers right. Computers are absurdly good at it, and much more efficient.

If they break or are otherwise compromised, they can be fixed, and discrepancies can be identified even if a machine is faulty, provided there's receipts and secure remote databases. New machines must produce receipts, and you don't know what security is until you've seen some of what the government has in place:

http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SMA/fisma/index.html

Again, this bill would not have removed electronic devices entirely so they would not only prone to hacking, but human error as well, along with allowing a federal government power vacuum into oversight it has no business having.

And no, abolish means to do away with entirely. If we abolished road emissions, there would be no cars.

[agi|e]

The point of that comparison is to inform me that Bu$h and friends think my vote is worthless because everyone knows the next election doesn't count because this overreaching and unlettered bill failed, and here's the calculation I've made to prove it, and i'll receive the bill for his jew-sponsored imperialist endeavors and I should be outraged.

ATM manufacturers are prone to the same shortfall, hacking. Do you see a little old man in supermarkets sitting at a table with a calculator, bag of cash, and a little strip of paper a mile long leading into a garbage bin as a result of this, with 2 armed guards behind him at attention, just in case the ATM breaks? No, and the reason is human beings are only so good at getting numbers right. Computers are absurdly good at it, and much more efficient.

If they break or are otherwise compromised, they can be fixed, and discrepancies can be identified even if a machine is faulty, provided there's receipts and secure remote databases. New machines must produce receipts, and you don't know what security is until you've seen some of what the government has in place:

http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SMA/fisma/index.html

Again, this bill would not have removed electronic devices entirely so they would not only prone to hacking, but human error as well, along with allowing a federal government power vacuum into oversight it has no business having.

And no, abolish means to do away with entirely. If we abolished road emissions, there would be no cars.

I think maybe you are reading things into my posts that aren't there. And if you are trying to confuse me with your pseudo intellectual rantings you are succeeding. How about we just agree that a paper trail is a good thing and leave it at that.

[BlackThoughT]

"With proprietary software and no independent paper trail, there are unfortunately grounds to doubt election results, especially when they're close."


Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=2507434&page=1
Hopefully abc news is a good enough source for you.

This should frighten the hell out of any normal US citizen.

If you want to start a separate thread for the deficit, baby boomers etc. go ahead. It's a good topic for discussion.

because there's no paper trail theres reason to doubt the election?
really?

I've never seen you anywhere except on the catacombs and in TFC, so I'm just going to go ahead and doubt your existance.

[dys]

I think he's one of those Men in Green agents that work for Al Gore and Howard Dean.

[AGT-Shady]

If this is just my paranoid delusion then why are there so many supporters of bills right now that address this issue of having a paper trail in elections? I suppose all these members of Congress and the Senate are delusional too right? And of course you in your smug little hole in the wall are the right one and everyone else is wrong.

:rolleyes:

Ever hear the phrase "prevention is the best medicine"?

Watergate-Iran Contra Scandal etc. all prove that there is always a real threat of corruption in government. To ignore this is against common sense.

It must be because of the looming and immediate threat of election tampering given the lack of it EVER HAVING BEEN PROVEN TO HAPPEN IN A FEDERAL ELECTION if we don't immediately revert back to paper trails this very second. Prevention? Really? I bet I can find examples of rigged elections using paper ballots before you can find examples of rigged paperless federal elections. :rolleyes:

[BlackThoughT]

I bet I can find examples of rigged elections using paper ballots before you can find examples of rigged paperless federal elections. :rolleyes:

Wait shady I already got one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2000

[theCops]

Here's more ways elections can be tampered with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud#Techniques

Where there's elections, there's the potential for fraud, ie. Castro's Cuba claimed 100% voter turnout in their last election.

The short video on the Princeton site demonstrates how to corrupt the voting machine they had.

One way is to use the key that came with the machine to open the side, take out the memory card, and put the bad one in.

Another is to pick the lock and swap cards.

Another is to flip the machine over and remove the entire lower assembly. I kind of thought it would be delivered by the voter card, but I guess not.

You try doing that when an election is in progress and tamper-evident tape is over the lock and elsewhere. What they're saying is with a certain measure of privacy, these machines can be corrupted. You'd need someone working on the inside to make it happen, but if that's the case, all paper elections are prone to the same issues. There's still the human error factor and ADDED administrative cost for a less efficient method if we go back to paper.

Their comprehensive paper: http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/ts-paper.pdf

addresses what could be done to add security to that particular machine, and the article right above it promotes switching manual auditing to machine-assisted auditing, so I don't think that article was meant to scare you off electronic voting.

Given our findings, we believe urgent action is needed to address these problems. We discuss potential
mitigation strategies in more detail below in Section 5.
The machine we obtained came loaded with version 4.3.15 of the Diebold BallotStation software that
runs the machine during an election.1 This version was deployed in 2002 and certified by the National
Association of State Election Directors (NASED) [11]. While some of the problems we identify in this
report may have been remedied in subsequent software releases (current versions are in the 4.6 series),
others are architectural in nature and cannot easily be repaired by software changes. In any case, subsequent
versions of the software should be assumed insecure until fully independent examination proves otherwise.
Though we studied a specific voting technology, we expect that a similar study of another DRE system,
whether from Diebold or another vendor, would raise similar concerns about malicious code injection attacks
and other problems. We studied the Diebold system because we had access to it, not because it is
1The behavior of our machine conformed almost exactly to the behavior specified by the source code to BallotStation version
4.3.1, which leaked to the public in 2003.
necessarily less secure than competing DREs. All DREs face fundamental security challenges that are not
easily overcome.
Despite these problems, we believe that it is possible, at reasonable cost, to build a DRE-based voting
system—including hardware, software, and election procedures—that is suitably secure and reliable. Such a
system would require not only a voting machine designed with more care and attention to security, but also
an array of safeguards, including a well-designed voter-verifiable paper audit trail system, random audits
and forensic analyses, and truly independent security review.

[agi|e]

because there's no paper trail theres reason to doubt the election?
really?

I've never seen you anywhere except on the catacombs and in TFC, so I'm just going to go ahead and doubt your existance.


Fine then. If I don't exist you don't need to respond to any more of my "imaginary" posts.

It must be because of the looming and immediate threat of election tampering given the lack of it EVER HAVING BEEN PROVEN TO HAPPEN IN A FEDERAL ELECTION if we don't immediately revert back to paper trails this very second. Prevention? Really? I bet I can find examples of rigged elections using paper ballots before you can find examples of rigged paperless federal elections.

I've come to realize we will never agree on topics like this. You trust our government 100% and I don't. It's really that simple. This doesn't mean I think all of them are corrupt. But past history shows us that sometimes they are not above breaking the law so the fact that there are no "proven" rigged elections is totally besides the point. We need a paper trail to be able to physically verify elections.


Despite these problems, we believe that it is possible, at reasonable cost, to build a DRE-based voting
system—including hardware, software, and election procedures—that is suitably secure and reliable. Such a
system would require not only a voting machine designed with more care and attention to security, but also
an array of safeguards, including a well-designed voter-verifiable paper audit trail system, random audits
and forensic analyses, and truly independent security review

So we agree. Thanks for posting this.

[theCops]

So we agree. Thanks for posting this.

We agree on a minor philosophical point. I am not against a voter-verifiable slip that the voter can check, preferably a wax paper format that can be signed allowing for multiple copies, but even this can be compromised by theft, vandalism or a hacked optical scanner.

Where we don't agree is with the notion I have that you wouldn't mind scrapping electronic voting entirely, to which I reply that's not necessary, practical, or more accurate.

[agi|e]

We agree on a minor philosophical point. I am not against a voter-verifiable slip that the voter can check, preferably a wax paper format that can be signed allowing for multiple copies, but even this can be compromised by theft, vandalism or a hacked optical scanner.

Where we don't agree is with the notion I have that you wouldn't mind scrapping electronic voting entirely, to which I reply that's not necessary, practical, or more accurate.

If an electronic DRE system can be implemented with paper trail like in the post I made earlier about the AVANTE Company then I have no problem with an electronic system.


Yesterday 12:11 Am
A method that combines the best of both types of systems is the best answer.

April 16 9:49 PM"
Try this: Accuracy AND paper trail.

http://www.avantetech.com/products/elections/dre/

"The DRE systems offered by AVANTE feature redundant ballot result storage devices whose data can be verified against voting machine printed "cut-and-drop" paper records previously verified by the voter. The records are then dropped into and secured inside a uniquely designed voter verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) printer ballot box. Systems meet or exceed Federal ADA (Accessibility) standards outlined in HAVA EAC voting system standards."

[AGT-Shady]

I've come to realize we will never agree on topics like this. You trust our government 100% and I don't. It's really that simple. This doesn't mean I think all of them are corrupt. But past history shows us that sometimes they are not above breaking the law so the fact that there are no "proven" rigged elections is totally besides the point. We need a paper trail to be able to physically verify elections.

It's not about trusting our government 100%, it's about not going out of my way and in this case 600 million dollars so to prevent things that have never happened before. It'd be like walking around with an army helmet because a meteorite fragment COULD fall out of the sky, hit me in the head and kill me. Is it possible, absolutely, are I and everyone I know and everyone they know gonna pool all of our money and spend the time and energy (and 600 million dollars) to safeguard as best we can against the possibility of it happening? Hell no. It's overly-alarmist at best and certifiably insane at worst.

[BlackThoughT]

We need a paper trail to be able to physically verify elections.
Why does holding the physical ballot make it any more likely that the election is.. correct i guess?

[agi|e]

It's not about trusting our government 100%, it's about not going out of my way and in this case 600 million dollars so to prevent things that have never happened before. It'd be like walking around with an army helmet because a meteorite fragment COULD fall out of the sky, hit me in the head and kill me. Is it possible, absolutely, are I and everyone I know and everyone they know gonna pool all of our money and spend the time and energy (and 600 million dollars) to safeguard as best we can against the possibility of it happening? Hell no. It's overly-alarmist at best and certifiably insane at worst.

You are comparing the chances of an election being compromised with getting hit by a meteorite?

lol

The Princeton researchers showed how easily a purely electronic system can be compromised. Care to refute this?

Elections are the BASE and CORNERSTONE of a Democracy. I can't believe you don't think securing our elections isn't worth 600 million dollars.

On the threat side,

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-12-05-diebold-money-to-bush_x.htm

when the CEO of one of the major voter machine companies expresses his commitment to turn out votes for a particular candidate,

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE2DA103CF931A25756C0A9629C8B 63

we've got problems if there is no paper trail and no authority to check the machine's software.

I suppose Stayne's post is also misguided and irrelevant also right?

[AGT-Shady]

You are comparing the chances of an election being compromised with getting hit by a meteorite?

Yes, I'm comparing the occurences that federal "E"lections have been compromised against the odds of getting physically hit by a meteorite, wanna guess which has more documented occurences? The Princeton study showed how easily THAT electronic system could be compromised given secure/private access. Is there s balloting system you know that CAN'T be compromised given secure/private access to the ballots? lol

It's like you watched "Man of the Year" and decided to go off another typical Academy crusade...... :rolleyes:

P.S. Here ya go man, new crusade! http://imca.repetti.net/metinfo/metstruck.html

Only 2 reasonable safeguards:

http://img34.picoodle.com/img/img34/4/4/19/f_umbrellahatm_e00d823.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/4/4/19/f_umbrellahatm_e00d823.jpg&srv=img34)

or

http://img34.picoodle.com/img/img34/4/4/19/f_Tezaveh5768m_91fd7dd.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/4/4/19/f_Tezaveh5768m_91fd7dd.jpg&srv=img34)

But alas, even they are not government corruption proof. :(

.




.




.




.




.




.


http://img34.picoodle.com/img/img34/4/4/19/f_bushumbrellm_491255a.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/4/4/19/f_bushumbrellm_491255a.jpg&srv=img34)

[agi|e]

Yes, I'm comparing the occurences that federal "E"lections have been compromised against the odds of getting physically hit by a meteorite, wanna guess which has more documented occurences? The Princeton study showed how easily THAT electronic system could be compromised given secure/private access. Is there s balloting system you know that CAN'T be compromised given secure/private access to the ballots? lol

It's like you watched "Man of the Year" and decided to go off another typical Academy crusade...... :rolleyes:

P.S. Here ya go man, new crusade! http://imca.repetti.net/metinfo/metstruck.html

Only 2 reasonable safeguards:

http://img34.picoodle.com/img/img34/4/4/19/f_umbrellahatm_e00d823.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/4/4/19/f_umbrellahatm_e00d823.jpg&srv=img34)

or

http://img34.picoodle.com/img/img34/4/4/19/f_Tezaveh5768m_91fd7dd.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/4/4/19/f_Tezaveh5768m_91fd7dd.jpg&srv=img34)

But alas, even they are not government corruption proof. :(

.
http://img34.picoodle.com/img/img34/4/4/19/f_bushumbrellm_491255a.jpg (http://www.picoodle.com/view.php?img=/4/4/19/f_bushumbrellm_491255a.jpg&srv=img34)

Posting humorous pictures doesn't gain you points here. Stick to the topic and you will fare better. The format of a debate is one side makes a point. Then the other side quotes that point and then attempts to refute it using logic and documentation. You haven't done that yet. Answer Stayne's point for example. Also, the fact that others on this thread support a paper trail totally negates your stupid "agi|e crusade" concept. Try again.

[AGT-Shady]

How are you gonna argue the merits of a points and logic debate when your entire arsenal consists of alarmist over-reactionary solutions to problems that don't exist? Stayne's stories prove nothing, it's innuendo (which I realize is spelled f-a-c-t to you), but there's no evidence that anyone did anything, as usual in your conspiracy theories, both stories are about how it "looks to some people" when the President of a voting machine companies comes out to support a particular candidate. They didn't rig anything, usurp voter rights, or commit fraud of any kind, they just......you know, availed themselves of the their constitutional rights and Democratcs did what democrats do, ran to the moral high ground.

Your comedy did trump mine tho I have to concede, telling someone else to use logic and facts in their debating tactics, priceless.


P.S. The facts are that no federal electronic fraud has ever happened in US History, and that left alone with the votes, voter fraud can happen in any and all formats. Until either of those facts change, you don't have a leg to stand on.

[agi|e]

How are you gonna argue the merits of a points and logic debate when your entire arsenal consists of alarmist over-reactionary solutions to problems that don't exist? Stayne's stories prove nothing, it's innuendo (which I realize is spelled f-a-c-t to you), but there's no evidence that anyone did anything, as usual in your conspiracy theories, both stories are about how it "looks to some people" when the President of a voting machine companies comes out to support a particular candidate. They didn't rig anything, usurp voter rights, or commit fraud of any kind, they just......you know, availed themselves of the their constitutional rights and Democratcs did what democrats do, ran to the moral high ground.

Your comedy did trump mine tho I have to concede, telling someone else to use logic and facts in their debating tactics, priceless.


P.S. The facts are that no federal electronic fraud has ever happened in US History, and that left alone with the votes, voter fraud can happen in any and all formats. Until either of those facts change, you don't have a leg to stand on.

"Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is calling on President Bush to return more than $100,000 donated to his campaign by a major manufacturer of voting machines, saying the relationship could damage confidence in elections. "

Fact not innuendo.

Mr. O'Dell drew criticism of his company in August when he sent an invitation to a fund-raising party that said, ''I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.'' He said he had not written it himself, though he declined to say who had, and intended only to sign a ''party invitation.''

Fact not innuendo.

Even if he didn't write the invitation himself it came from his organization which he is responsible for.

It's called conflict of interest. If you don't know what that means look it up in a dictionary.

[Stayne]

In fairness, using blogs as your sources is pretty telling of your fact-checking. people's writing in blogs are held to absolutely no standard of truth, fairness, or accuracy.

To be fair, a large amount of our print media relies on the investigative journalism of the blogosphere these days. Fewer and fewer networks are putting resources into investigative journalism, and simply rely on Drudge, TPM, HuffPo, dkos, Politico and others to do the work. They then report what has gained interest in the blogs, and often do not cite their source (because its embarrassing). For example, the whole "bittergate" nontroversy was built upon a post by a "citizen journalist" (unpaid blogger with no credentials who posts under an alias) on HuffPo.

I guess my question is, if blogs are being discounted simply because they are blogs, what is a legitimate source of information? Is it possible that good information can be found on a blog (TPM won the Polk Award for Legal Reporting (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003712141))? Is it possible that bad information can be found in the traditional press? Are these questions rhetorical?

[AGT-Shady]

"Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is calling on President Bush to return more than $100,000 donated to his campaign by a major manufacturer of voting machines, saying the relationship could damage confidence in elections. "

Fact not innuendo.

Mr. O'Dell drew criticism of his company in August when he sent an invitation to a fund-raising party that said, ''I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.'' He said he had not written it himself, though he declined to say who had, and intended only to sign a ''party invitation.''

Fact not innuendo.

Even if he didn't write the invitation himself it came from his organization which he is responsible for.

It's called conflict of interest. If you don't know what that means look it up in a dictionary.

"Agile might be the dumbest person on the Earth" - Shady

Fact that I said it, however just because I said it doesn't make it s fact, right? A thousand people can say it and it doesn't make it true, or does it become a fact because I said it? Notice how neither democrat has the stones to accuse anyone of anything, since you know, noone DID or conspired to do anything illegal?

Those are both excellent examples of conflict of interest, however that is the epitome of groundless innuendo as nothing indicates that either of them had any intention of doing anything wrong. That's me answering Stayne's "points" per your request, his points had nothing to do with anything illegal in any way. One could even argue that someone inclined to tamper with elections wouldn't draw attention to himself by publically supporting his candidate.

So yet again you're running off on a tangent about what might happen, what could happen, and ignoring what HAS happened, with is absolutely nothing.

[agi|e]

"Agile might be the dumbest person on the Earth" - Shady

Fact that I said it, however just because I said it doesn't make it s fact, right? A thousand people can say it and it doesn't make it true, or does it become a fact because I said it? Notice how neither democrat has the stones to accuse anyone of anything, since you know, noone DID or conspired to do anything illegal?

Those are both excellent examples of conflict of interest, however that is the epitome of groundless innuendo as nothing indicates that either of them had any intention of doing anything wrong. That's me answering Stayne's "points" per your request, his points had nothing to do with anything illegal in any way. One could even argue that someone inclined to tamper with elections wouldn't draw attention to himself by publically supporting his candidate.

So yet again you're running off on a tangent about what might happen, what could happen, and ignoring what HAS happened, with is absolutely nothing.

So now you are quoting yourself saying I'm dumb?? Pathetic.

lol

The "fact" that he donated the money and it was accepted indicates at the very least the possibility of influence. The danger is very real and you saying it isn't means you are either genuinely naive or desperately trying to save your side of the argument which of course can't be done.

[FaLsE_Ph-]

I support the paper ballot because simply this, back a few years ago there was a congressional hearing with a computer programmer from Exxonmobil about electronic voting systems and if you can rig elections unknowingly with them. He basically said yes you can and it has been done already. The only way you can disprove the outcome is either through looking at the source code or counting the paper ballots. But, the companies that produce the electronic ballet voting machines does not allow anyone to look at the source code. Corporatism to the max. Welcome to fascism. My source is America: Freedom to Fascism where they have actual video footage of the congressional hearing and them saying this shit.

Unfortunately many Americans are too stupid to care because they're too concerned about the environment and want to save trees, I say what about saving America. Fuck the trees.

[AGT-Shady]

So now you are quoting yourself saying I'm dumb?? Pathetic.

lol

The "fact" that he donated the money and it was accepted indicates at the very least the possibility of influence. The danger is very real and you saying it isn't means you are either genuinely naive or desperately trying to save your side of the argument which of course can't be done.

It's so silly pointing anything out to you contrary to your beliefs because you don't want to see it, yet I always make the assumption you can apply reason/logic to your thought process. I apologize for wasting both of our time. Substitute "Agile is dumb" for "Agile is a fucking genius" if you prefer, does it become a fact because I said it, does tangible proof need to be there?


How do you "apply influence" in an electronic election just so I'm clear on your train of thought? Is there another way you're concrned about beside election tampering, which as we've already established has never been done in a paperless format?

[agi|e]

It's so silly pointing anything out to you contrary to your beliefs because you don't want to see it, yet I always make the assumption you can apply reason/logic to your thought process. I apologize for wasting both of our time. Substitute "Agile is dumb" for "Agile is a fucking genius" if you prefer, does it become a fact because I said it, does tangible proof need to be there?


How do you "apply influence" in an electronic election just so I'm clear on your train of thought? Is there another way you're concrned about beside election tampering, which as we've already established has never been done in a paperless format?

The president of the company that supplied the voting machines gave one of the candidates money. Even he was sorry after he did it and pledged to not donate any money in the future to either side. If HE could admit it was a mistake why can't you? When you give someone a large amount of money in support of their campaign and you are involved with a critical aspect of an election it's going to be seen as a problem. As to HOW influence could be done it's irrelevant. His company MAKES THE MACHINES so his actions constitute a conflict of interest situation. You are the one who can't seem to use logic to see this.

Duh.

So as a result of this voter confidence in the system has been lowered and as a logical consequence calls are being made to implement a system backed by paper. Again the fact that it's never been proven that a paperless system has been compromised is totally irrelevant.

There's nothing esoteric or complex here. If you don't see a problem with this then there's nothing more to discuss.

[Cyberdemon]

Posting humorous pictures doesn't gain you points here. Stick to the topic and you will fare better.

You write lots and lots of words and I'm sure they're all terrific, but have you written any of your representatives yet?

[theCops]

To be fair, a large amount of our print media relies on the investigative journalism of the blogosphere these days. Fewer and fewer networks are putting resources into investigative journalism, and simply rely on Drudge, TPM, HuffPo, dkos, Politico and others to do the work. They then report what has gained interest in the blogs, and often do not cite their source (because its embarrassing). For example, the whole "bittergate" nontroversy was built upon a post by a "citizen journalist" (unpaid blogger with no credentials who posts under an alias) on HuffPo.

I guess my question is, if blogs are being discounted simply because they are blogs, what is a legitimate source of information? Is it possible that good information can be found on a blog (TPM won the Polk Award for Legal Reporting (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003712141))? Is it possible that bad information can be found in the traditional press? Are these questions rhetorical?

To me, it's the natural progression of the guest essay section of the newspaper. Opinions and bias are fair game, which can distort truths and make something look completely different from what it really is.

ie. 'bitter' - There's no reason to doubt that a handful of ultra right-wing bloggers are right now getting to the bottom of the whereabouts of Obama's secret underground dog-fighting ring underneath his shady property dealings, that they found out about from a (undisclosed) white supremacist blogger. No one's going to hold them to intellectual honesty, and that's why it's a faulty source of data by itself. There's no limit to the amount of spin or outright dishonesty you can put on any topic in those communities.

While there is undoubtedly plenty of truth to what people on blogs are saying, it's also just one person editorializing with no review, just one guy with a keyboard and some free time, and you have no way of knowing who they are or what priorities they have in mind, and that can cause problems if you're relying on it for information.

For example, the guy who turned HR 5036 being turned down into a rant on the iraq war. agi|e repeated it here. Totally irrelevant spin jobs as an appeal to emotion don't fly if you're being paid to do your job from a balanced perspective.

The best way is to cross-examine multiple sources of information with one another and not take one blogger at face value because most of it sounds reasonable and the guy likes the same kind of music you do.

[AGT-Shady]

His company MAKES THE MACHINES so his actions constitute a conflict of interest situation. You are the one who can't seem to use logic to see this.

Those are both excellent examples of conflict of interest, however that is the epitome of groundless innuendo as nothing indicates that either of them had any intention of doing anything wrong.

How am I not seeing it if I already acknowledged it 5 posts ago?

Conflict of interest is not impropriety, it's not illegal, and it's not tampering of any kind, it only matters to him because it's his system that would be used and the millions they would make by having their program used, they could use any other companies voting programs and problem solved, that's why HE cares. Is that easier for you to see the difference between "conflict of interest" and having any meaningful impact on the system itself? Otherwise you chose to focus on the DANGER:eek: and FEAR:( to get people to act on something that's at risk for being compromised no matter what format is taken.

For a guy that's been criticizing the givernment for the exact same tactics it's interesting all you have left is to resort to them. ;)

[agi|e]

You write lots and lots of words and I'm sure they're all terrific, but have you written any of your representatives yet?

I talked with a secretary (wasn't the actual guy but a person in the office) last week. She didn't know the answer to why my representative voted against it. He's a Republican BTW. I suppose a letter would be a better idea to actually possibly make it to his office.

[agi|e]

How am I not seeing it if I already acknowledged it 5 posts ago?

Conflict of interest is not impropriety, it's not illegal, and it's not tampering of any kind, it only matters to him because it's his system that would be used and the millions they would make by having their program used, they could use any other companies voting programs and problem solved, that's why HE cares. Is that easier for you to see the difference between "conflict of interest" and having any meaningful impact on the system itself? Otherwise you chose to focus on the DANGER:eek: and FEAR:( to get people to act on something that's at risk for being comproised no matter what format is taken.

For a guy that's been criticizing the givernment for the exact same tactics it's interesting all you have left is to resort to them. ;)



"The secretary of state, Kevin Shelley, has asked California's attorney general to investigate whether Diebold should face charges.

Reading carefully from a statement, Mr. O'Dell said, ''Diebold intends to fully cooperate with the attorney general in his investigation of the secretary of state's concerns.''

Source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE2DA103CF931A25756C0A9629C8B 63

And this:

"In August 2003, Walden O'Dell, then the chief executive of Diebold, announced that he had been a top fund-raiser for President George W. Bush and had sent a get-out-the-funds letter to 100 wealthy and politically inclined friends in the Republican Party, to be held at his home in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio.[7] When assailed by critics for the conflict of interest, he pointed out that the company's election machines division is run out of Texas by a registered Democrat. Nonetheless, he vowed to lower his political profile lest his personal actions harm the company.

In December 2005, O'Dell resigned following reports that the company was facing securities fraud litigation surrounding charges of insider trading.[8]

In March 2007, it was reported by the Associated Press that Diebold was considering divesting itself of its voting machine subsidiary because it was "widely seen as tarnishing the company's reputation".[9]

In August 2007, Wikipedia Scanner found that edits via the company's IP addresses occurred to Diebold's Wikipedia article, removing criticisms of the company's products, references to its CEO's fund-raising for President Bush and other negative criticism from the Wikipedia page about the company in November 2005.[10]"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diebold

Finally since you apparently don't get the meaning:

A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results from it. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the person, profession, or court system.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

[AGT-Shady]

Thank you for that shining example of how people who can abuse power sometimes DO abuse power. Conflict of interests in the business world are not against the law until someone acts on them, now get to the part where anyone in this particular example have abused their power, oh right, it never happened.....

Paper balloting can and HAS been the victim to election tampering, electronic balloting has not. So you wanna toss the simpler and cheaper method that has never been abused because it COULD BE in favor of the more complicated and expensive version that already HAS and still can be. All your smoke and mirrors about the appearances of impropriety changes nothing, that's the crux of the debate and the points you can't refute. It's what you always do, your orginal point isn't getting you anwyehre so you just start throwing up straw arguments to draw attention away from your weak ass beginnning position, address the point or just stop posting already.

[FaLsE_Ph-]

Paper balloting can and HAS been the victim to election tampering, electronic balloting has not. So you wanna toss the simpler and cheaper method that has never been abused because it COULD BE in favor of the more complicated and expensive version that already HAS and still can be. All your smoke and mirrors about the appearances of impropriety changes nothing, that's the crux of the debate and the points you can't refute. It's what you always do, your orginal point isn't getting you anwyehre so you just start throwing up straw arguments to draw attention away from your weak ass beginnning position, address the point or just stop posting already.


Like I said in an earlier post there has been a congressional hearing on electronic tampering and they found out that it was possible to tamper without knowing and has been done already! Source: America: Freedom to Fascism and they have the video footage of the damn congressional hearing and one of the programmers admitting to it!

[agi|e]

Thank you for that shining example of how people who can abuse power sometimes DO abuse power. Conflict of interests in the business world are not against the law until someone acts on them, now get to the part where anyone in this particular example have abused their power, oh right, it never happened.....

Paper balloting can and HAS been the victim to election tampering, electronic balloting has not. So you wanna toss the simpler and cheaper method that has never been abused because it COULD BE in favor of the more complicated and expensive version that already HAS and still can be. All your smoke and mirrors about the appearances of impropriety changes nothing, that's the crux of the debate and the points you can't refute. It's what you always do, your orginal point isn't getting you anwyehre so you just start throwing up straw arguments to draw attention away from your weak ass beginnning position, address the point or just stop posting already.

The original point stands and you have yet to refute it. A paper trail is needed to verify elections if they need to be verified. I have made my points and backed them up with sources. What have you done?

1.Quoted yourself calling me dumb.
2.Defined the meanings of words like "innuendo" and "facts."
3.Called me "over-reactionary."
4.Main point is nothing bad has happened yet so let's just keep things the same and hope the politicians behave themselves.
5.Ignored all the points which crush your position.

So you haven't contributed anything worth reading so far. Try again?

[Stayne]

agi|e. I think that people often react to the tone of your posts rather than the content. If you could work on the tone a bit (I am guilty of this, too), you might get better responses.

Also, try to condense your arguments a bit. Rather than copy/pasting long articles, pull out the most important points and link to the full article for those interested (try to find original and tradition sources when possible). Basically, make specific points that can be discussed. Raise specific questions. It will help to guide the discussion and reduce the personal attacks. Then you can spend less time defending yourself and more time discussing the topic. ;)

[agi|e]

agi|e. I think that people often react to the tone of your posts rather than the content. If you could work on the tone a bit (I am guilty of this, too), you might get better responses.

Also, try to condense your arguments a bit. Rather than copy/pasting long articles, pull out the most important points and link to the full article for those interested (try to find original and tradition sources when possible). Basically, make specific points that can be discussed. Raise specific questions. It will help to guide the discussion and reduce the personal attacks. Then you can spend less time defending yourself and more time discussing the topic. ;)

OK

Point well taken. Keep in mind though that I only get nasty when others are nasty to me first. It would be fine with me to have a heated debate without personal attacks and I have said this on more than one occasion. People don't seem to understand that it's the topic that counts not whether or not you like the person you are debating. Also, I've been accused of being overly stubborn with my points but the truth is I usually pick topics that I think are important and that I can defend in a successful manner. But if someone shows me to be inaccurate on a subject I don't have a problem acknowledging it. As long as they make a strong case and can back it up with facts or evidence.

Sometimes it just ends in a stalemate and both sides have to agree to disagree. So even the most heated debate can end peacefully.

The real point of a debate isn't to win. The point is to become better educated.

[Cyberdemon]

I talked with a secretary (wasn't the actual guy but a person in the office) last week. She didn't know the answer to why my representative voted against it. He's a Republican BTW. I suppose a letter would be a better idea to actually possibly make it to his office.

So why not go draft one instead of arguing about it on a Team Fortress forum? I doubt he's a regular here.

[agi|e]

So why not go draft one instead of arguing about it on a Team Fortress forum? I doubt he's a regular here.


The forum is here to discuss topics of importance. That's what we are doing.

[AGT-Shady]

But if someone shows me to be inaccurate on a subject I don't have a problem acknowledging it. As long as they make a strong case and can back it up with facts or evidence.

You started off your defense of your position comparing an "E"lection America to China, how do you ever expect people to take you seriously about a bill that's already been shot down for unneccesary spending? I am not opposed to an E-system with paper reciepts on records for vote totals, but this bill is unneccesary to do that especially since there's still about a billion dollars available from the election reform act.

[Sutterkane]

To expound on Shady and Stayne's posts, when in your 2nd post of the thread, the 5th post of the entire thread, you start comparing things to the Iraq war, it's pretty annoying.

Not everything can be about that subject. We're all well aware of your stance on it.

[Stayne]

The real point of a debate isn't to win. The point is to become better educated.

Except for when I already know the correct answer ;)

[schtoofa]

To expound on Shady and Stayne's posts, when in your 2nd post of the thread, the 5th post of the entire thread, you start comparing things to the Iraq war, it's pretty annoying.

Not everything can be about that subject. We're all well aware of your stance on it.

Indeed. FYI agile, when you bring up crap like that you immediately come across as polarized and uninterested in having an educated debate... or at least you come off that way to [some] people who may on first thought disagree with you. Bringing up "support" like "We could do ___ with the money spent on Iraq" only serves to rally the people who already agree with what you're saying; it doesn't encourage healthy debate with potential opposition.

[stas]

The original point stands and you have yet to refute it. A paper trail is needed to verify elections if they need to be verified. I have made my points and backed them up with sources. What have you done?

1.Quoted yourself calling me dumb.
2.Defined the meanings of words like "innuendo" and "facts."
3.Called me "over-reactionary."
4.Main point is nothing bad has happened yet so let's just keep things the same and hope the politicians behave themselves.
5.Ignored all the points which crush your position.

So you haven't contributed anything worth reading so far. Try again?

i was going to stay out of this, but this is absurd. shady made several valid points. all that you have done (just like false) is say something could happen. you have never said that it has happened. shady addressed your logical approach with his meteorite from the sky example. it was valid, since it (much like election fraud with electronic machines) could happen. the problem is that paper ballots could go missing, even with an electronic backup which could be tampered with.

do you see the problem with your argument? youre saying that because there is potential, there must be a problem. this is not so. all youre doing is arguing the potential for something to happen. and what youre proposing has a $600 million pricetag with the same potential. do you understand why you appear so dense to everyone else? shady only started calling you dumb when you equated "could happen" with "is happening" or "conflict of interest" with "patently illegal" (despite the fact that nothing illegal happened, meaning he did nothing wrong, only that there is perception, and we all know that percetion is not reality).

warren buffet hosted a fundraiser for barack obama. he has billions of dollars. does that mean hes buying everyones vote, since he has enough money to be capable of it?

[agi|e]

i was going to stay out of this, but this is absurd. shady made several valid points. all that you have done (just like false) is say something could happen. you have never said that it has happened. shady addressed your logical approach with his meteorite from the sky example. it was valid, since it (much like election fraud with electronic machines) could happen. the problem is that paper ballots could go missing, even with an electronic backup which could be tampered with.

do you see the problem with your argument? youre saying that because there is potential, there must be a problem. this is not so. all youre doing is arguing the potential for something to happen. and what youre proposing has a $600 million pricetag with the same potential. do you understand why you appear so dense to everyone else? shady only started calling you dumb when you equated "could happen" with "is happening" or "conflict of interest" with "patently illegal" (despite the fact that nothing illegal happened, meaning he did nothing wrong, only that there is perception, and we all know that percetion is not reality).

warren buffet hosted a fundraiser for barack obama. he has billions of dollars. does that mean hes buying everyones vote, since he has enough money to be capable of it?


Obviously we have different opinions of the risk assessment in this case. You, Shady and others believe the risk of a fraudulent election is not great enough to justify the expenditure. I believe (and others here too) that the risk does justify the cost. Both sides have made their points so anyone viewing the debate can make their own decisions.

[stas]

Obviously we have different opinions of the risk assessment in this case. You, Shady and others believe the risk of a fraudulent election is not great enough to justify the expenditure. I believe (and others here too) that the risk does justify the cost. Both sides have made their points so anyone viewing the debate can make their own decisions.

i think the real question is why you believe the risk is necessary. isnt that what you have to prove, really? you havent proven anything in that regard. youve just posted quotes and said 'see? see? how can you not believe me?!?!' all scenarios of fraud require time alone with the machines. independent on-site checks (which the government could mandate if they wanted) of the machines could easily be done for a lot less money. if you believe that every indepedent contractor could be paid off, then obviously youre a fruitcake who will never be satisfied.