Results Not Surprising
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| beirwin Jul 31, 2007 11:49 AM EDT |
When will those responsible for conducting elections catch the clue train about proprietary voting machines? As long as the U.S. continues with such a fragmented electoral process (each county in each state doing its thing -- I think this is correct), there will continue to be a patchwork of how elections are conducted - some using voting machines, others something else. In Canada the election process is standardized. Elections Canada is responsible for ensuring a fair and open electoral process for federal elections. It is an independent, non-partisan agency reporting directly to the Parliament of Canada. Each province and territory have similar non-partisan agencies for provincial and territorial elections. This has worked very well and, as a result, no problems with vote counting (no voting machines are used -- just plain, old fashion paper ballots). Judicial recounts are automatically done if the number of votes for the leading candidates are the same or are separated by less than one one-thousandth of the total votes cast in the electoral district. Canadians have faith in their electoral system because there is no political interference in the process. |
| hkwint Jul 31, 2007 12:26 PM EDT |
Quoting:As long as the U.S. continues with such a fragmented electoral process (each county in each state doing its thing -- I think this is correct), there will continue to be a patchwork of how elections are conducted - some using voting machines, others something else. I can assure you, from my own knowledge and experience, the way in which elections are organized doesn't matter much with respect to how save the elections are. My own country, the Netherlands, is probably the best example. In NL, the election process is standardized, their is an independent non-partisan (there are ten different parties in our parliament) 'elections council' responsible for ensuring a fair and open electoral process. Nonetheless, Dutch e-voting machines still can be eavesdropped, because of electromagnetic radiation, and cracked, as well physically as its proprietary software (though open to the government itself). This is the reason a while ago, almost the whole country voted using computers, but only in Amsterdam, they still used the red pencils because the municipality of Amsterdam ordered open source voting machines. Since there were no open source voting machines, they had to resort to the pencils. No bill is printed in the e-voting machines, so citizens cannot control if their vote is counted. Critics about this process are ascending, and a critical citizen-group called - translated - 'We don't trust voting-computers' showed the e-voting machines aren't safe at all in a way that the machine manufacturers can't deny it any longer. About a year or two years later, all SDU-machines, a significant percentage of the voting machines (~10% of them I believe) were rejected as voting machines. The other 90% isn't secure also, anyway (they're coming from NEDAP). So, the partisan agency in the US conducting the voting process, and private companies deciding who may vote and who may not indeed leads to a lot of problems (I remember FL in 2000), but changing the way elections are organized cannot change the problem of closed-source voting software, only a law demanding open source voting systems can tackle this problem. |
| dinotrac Jul 31, 2007 12:31 PM EDT |
>I remember FL in 2000 Not that well, it would seem. The Florida problems had nothing to do with modern voting machines. They were mostly punched cards and scan-tron. Ironically, the most controversial ballots in the state were designed by Democrats, who were in charge of Broward (I think it was Broward) county. BTW - I was in Amsterdam on the day of the 2000 US Presidential Election (I had already voted absentee). I got a lot of ribbing from the Dutch folks I was there to work with. |
| hkwint Jul 31, 2007 1:01 PM EDT |
No, I don't mean the punch-cards at all. Humans make mistakes, and the punch-cards were just that and nothing more, we only laughed about that. I am trying to say the opposite: The way of voting - open source or proprietary source or pencil, and the way of organizing the election are two different things. When talking about FL 2000, I meant conflict of interest of Katherine Harris, and the connections between DBT (which did the highest bid in a tender but was still chosen?), Emmett Mitchell and the Republican Party. These weren't human errors, if you'd ask me this was deliberate election fraud (it would be called such in my country probably, I guess). That's what I was angry about, the clumsy punch cards, as said, didn't matter that much, they were - in my opinion - not what really was wrong about that elections. In a certain way you see, the punch cards could be better than the e-voting in my country, assuming the punch cards work the way they were designed, because voters could control/check their vote. In NL, people can't check their vote. So, _if_ the punch cards would have worked, the way the elections were organized sucked because of the conflicts of interest in a way probably never seen in a civilized modern democratic country, but the technical aspect _could_ have worked and _could_ have been right. Sadly, the technical aspects also sucked. What I'm trying to say is, the 'organizational' and 'technical' implementations of an election are not correlated in the way beirwin assumes in his first post, and they seem like independent factors to me. The prove was, in my country (NL) the organization is OK, but the technical implementation sucks in a way never seen in a civilized modern democratic country; probably even more than in the US (you see, NEDAP is alomst Dutch for Diebold). |
| beirwin Jul 31, 2007 1:14 PM EDT |
"I can assure you, from my own knowledge and experience, the way in which elections are organized doesn't matter much with respect to how save the elections are." I understand what you're saying here -- there is always the possibility that the electoral process may be compromised particularly if computerized voting machines are used. A friend of mine told me once that he found people's IQ drops dramatically when dealing with computers. Yep, how true. However, I still think that having an independent, non-partisan agency responsible for the electoral process is a step in the right direction. Also, it's easier to lobby *one* agency to do the right thing and select free/open source voting machines. |
| dinotrac Jul 31, 2007 1:24 PM EDT |
>These weren't human errors, if you'd ask me this was deliberate election fraud Ummm...There has never been any evidence of fraud. There were election watchers at the polling sites, and all counts were done according to law. The biggest complaints were actually over things done by Democrats, not Republicans. If there was any fraud, it was by whoever led the major networks to call Florida for Al Gore while polling was still open in the heavily Republican panhandle. If that hadn't happened, nobody would be talking about Florida today. Instead, everyone would be wondering how Gore could lose by failing to carry his own home state. |
| jdixon Jul 31, 2007 4:22 PM EDT |
> When will those responsible for conducting elections catch the clue train about proprietary voting machines? When the public outcry about the systems overcomes the kickbacks and donations by the companies making the voting machines. > As long as the U.S. continues with such a fragmented electoral process (each county in each state doing its thing -- I think this is correct), there will continue to be a patchwork of how elections are conducted - some using voting machines, others something else. That's deliberate. Most elections are not national, and the federal government should have no say in state or local elections. The say the federal government does have is clearly stated in the US Constitution. It may not be the most efficient way, but that was a deliberate decision by those who wrote the Constitution. > ...if you'd ask me this was deliberate election fraud... As Dino has already stated, numerous recounts in Florida have shown nothing of the kind, and most of the "irregularities" found were in the Democrat's favor. By all rights, Gore should have carried Tennessee and/or his recount in Florida should have given him the election. Numerous recount, some by completely independent news organizations, make it clear that the votes he was looking for weren't there. Bush won the electoral college fair and square. He did not win the popular vote, but in our system that doesn't matter. |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 31, 2007 4:50 PM EDT |
People seem destined to forget history. Edward G. Robinson, in some 1930s movie, said, "In Florida, we count the votes. And we keep on counting them until we get the result we want." Anarchist time: Elections are a distraction to keep people from organizing revolt. If voting had any real effect, it would be illegal. The people in control are not elected. They are the staffers, the lobbyists, the bureaucrats who cycle between the regulatory agencies and the businesses they supposedly regulate. Where the Declaration of Independence failed was in recognizing that the goal is independence not from one particular government or another, but independence _from_ government. However, even the Founding Fathers were wedded to the merchantilism the were already accustomed to, which is why the bloodless coup, the complete counter-revolution that was the Constitution. States ever since have been little more than administrative districts of the National government. See: Katherine Harris going to the US Supreme Court to resolve a Florida internal administrative issue. |
| jrm Aug 01, 2007 4:40 AM EDT |
> Edward G. Robinson, in some 1930s movie, said, "In Florida, we count the votes. And we keep on counting them until we get the result we want." Nah, that can't be right. You're talking about "Key Largo". Since Humphrey Bogart played a WWII vet, it had to be late 40s. And Robinson played an old gangster, so he wouldn't have been talking about elections in Florida. Chicago maybe, but not Florida. |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2007 5:01 AM EDT |
>Elections are a distraction to keep people from organizing revolt That's a flip way of putting it, but that actually is the reason for elections. The idea is that widespread participation coupled with a clear and seemingly fair means for determining outcome grant legitimacy to the choices made. Not correctness, not wisdom, legitimacy, ie, something that people can accept. Same applies to jury trials. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 01, 2007 5:36 AM EDT |
> You're talking about "Key Largo". Oh, ok, if you say so. I have only heard of the movie by reference, not having seen it myself. But now, with a title, I can. Thank you! > Same applies to jury trials. I can understand what you mean. While the jury trial's purpose was to limit the arbitrary authority of the state, the result of general sufferage has been the enabling of Big Mommy government into every aspect of a person's life. While a jury requires unanimity, voting is a simple majority at best, plurality at worst, and the loudest squeeking wheels get the most pay-offs to shut them up. Did you ever read L. Neil Smith's _The Probability Broach_? Or Murray Rothbard's _For A New Liberty_? |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2007 5:50 AM EDT |
>While a jury requires unanimity, voting is a simple majority at best, plurality at worst, and the loudest squeeking wheels get the most pay-offs to shut them up.
Jury unanimity is a mixed bag, but, more important, is much easier to achieve in a group of 12 than in a group of, say, 100 million. As to voting, there are actually many different voting schemes, even within the US -- There's the Presidential elections, a whole process from primaries through general election. And, of course, the whole electoral college thing. There's amendments to the Constitution, intentionally difficult. There are states where a plurality can get you elected to Congress and states where you need to have a runoff. And then there are those countries with parliamentary systems (shivers). > Did you ever read L. Neil Smith's _The Probability Broach_? > Or Murray Rothbard's _For A New Liberty_? No. I am sadly lax in my reading. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 01, 2007 2:36 PM EDT |
> There's the Presidential elections, a whole process from primaries through general election. Yep, and why does it take two years and vast treasure to do this silly thing? Because the stakes and the power up for grabs is so very, very great. Power corrupts. > there are actually many different voting schemes, even within the US Indeed, with states like Pennsylvania which seems to have strange German legal roots, Louisiana with their Code Napoleon, and the Spanish roots of some other states too. Yeah, you might have guessed I'm not just out of highschool. > No. I am sadly lax in my reading. Ah, but I can help! The Probability Broach: The Graphic Novel! (quite well done and entertaining, actually, forget politics and enjoy the story) http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn?page=1 For A New Liberty Text: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp Audio: http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87 |
| hkwint Aug 01, 2007 3:32 PM EDT |
Quoting:the biggest complaints were actually over things done by Democrats, not Republicans. Funny to hear. Then how comes all complaints I saw / heard about it were things done by Republicans? For example, our media told about how Katherine Harris was part of the G.Bush-election (marketing?) team, and at the same time she was a kind of judge (OK, I understand now, the impression she was a 'judge' was a bit wrong) in a conflict between the Democratic and Republican party. She tried to stop the re-elections several times, but of course that wasn't a non-partisan decision in the interest of democracy (stopping re-elections when counting of the votes are known to be erroneous is never in favour of democracy, is it?). How comes someone that subjective - even an important member from the Bush election team - is able to judge about those important issues, which touch the basis of the democracy in the USA? Also, it were (the same) Harris and Mortham managing the exfelons issue, I quote: Quoting:Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state--Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protegees of Governor Jeb Bush--ordered 57,700 "exfelons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. ... ...DBT... ...originally proposed using address histories and financial records to confirm the names, but the state declined,the cross-checks. In Harris's elections-office files, next to DBT's sophisticated verification plan, there is a handwritten note: "DON'T NEED." (Found that at http://www.diggers.org/freecitynews/_disc1/0000001e.htm , but it's exactly the way it was on European media back then) This exfelon issue, managed by Katherine Harris, led to Bush winning the elections, if you regard it in retrospective. Now, disregarding the technical difficulties and recounting issues, that's what I call election fraud: Someone from the George Bush-campaign team, and a protegee of Jeb Bush, _consciously_ taking away the right of lawfully legal voters to vote. On the other hand, I didn't hear much about democratic people doing stuff wrong, except for only deciding issues in favour of their own interests (now, that's why a country needs more than two large parties in their parliaments if you'd ask me). Is this all because European media isn't independent and lacking, or is it because American media isn't independent and lacking? It still confuses me because I thought I understood what happened, but I guess it's different to understand when there's an ocean in between. Anyway, it shows the people themselves (for example organized in councils) or _independent_ judges (and not team-mates of president-candidates, participating parties, or a court of which its members are known to be in favour of particular political parties) should manage election issues and / or conflicts, and people should be able to control their votes themselves, I guess. I mean, democracy means power to the people, not to the party-dependent election-decision makers. Elections which are not handled by independent people are not democratic, if you'd ask me. If what happened in Florida wasn't election fraud, than it was the contrary of democracy, more resembling feudalism, to say the least. The problem is probably, it is difficult to find independent people. Well, if that's the issue for the USA (and all other countries alike), they should find them abroad probably, in the same manner the USA sends observers to elections in countries where they think the organizers might commit fraud ore are anti-democratic. Last time there were elections in my country, there were observers from Africa and other continents. As a voter, it gave me confidence that, if the elections weren't democratic, at least I would come to know. |
| Scott_Ruecker Aug 01, 2007 5:07 PM EDT |
Quoting:Not correctness, not wisdom, legitimacy, ie, something that people can accept. And that my friends is what people who rule over others have been trying to do since the beginning of time. Quoting:Last time there were elections in my country, there were observers from Africa and other continents. That would never happen in the US, Most Americans are too arrogant to let "some foreigners" look over an election. Obviously I do not share that opinion but then again, I'm not the average American. :-) The only elections that your single vote might have an affect is in a city, county or state election, maybe, if your lucky. When you are 1 in 20,000 or 30,000 votes, you are statistically having an affect. Those are the only elections I vote in on a regular basis. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 01, 2007 6:19 PM EDT |
> And that my friends is what people who rule over others have been trying to do since the beginning of time. Beautifully said. http://www.mises.org/mp3/War/War8a.mp3 Hans Hoppe presents an interesting examination of the effects of the general shift from monarchical governmental systems to democratic systems. It's easy to dismiss the conclusions as maybe "reactionary", still it is the argument itself which I find fascinating. Even compelling. Whether it is Microsoft, IBM, Apple, Democrats or Republicans, all of them react the same when their vested interests are threatened: they do what ever it takes. Democrats failing to count absentee ballots from overseas military or making last-minute efforts to register as many welfare recipients as possible before an election, Republicans mandating the use of electronic ballot machines that leave no trace of what the actual votes were, members of both parties trying to decide what the voter "really meant" when counting technically invalid ballots (incomplete punches, hanging chads, multiple conflicting selections, etc). JRM, if it is "Key Largo", that is in Florida, so the quote could be valid. Something that occurred to me whilst mowing the lawn this afternoon: Ireland is an excellent example of electoral abuse in action. Was it 5 or 7 times that membership in the E.U. was put up for election? Well, it failed, and failed, and failed, but the "vested interests" have too much to gain by being able to rape as many people as possible with their central bank and fiat currency. So, just to shut them up, a bare majority finally is found to make the measure pass. ....and the question is never presented again. "We count them, and count them, until we get the result we want." I hope that this completely off-topic thread is allowed to run its course. |
| jdixon Aug 01, 2007 6:36 PM EDT |
> Then how comes all complaints I saw / heard about it were things done by Republicans? Bias on the part of the medium doing the reporting, most likely. > For example, our media told about how Katherine Harris was part of the G.Bush-election (marketing?) team, and at the same time she was a kind of judge (OK, I understand now, the impression she was a 'judge' was a bit wrong) in a conflict between the Democratic and Republican party. She was the elected Secretary of State of Florida. Overseeing the elections was the job she was elected to perform. > She tried to stop the re-elections several times, but of course that wasn't a non-partisan decision in the interest of democracy... It was her job to certify the results of the election. She did so. Now, this section is more problematic, and may rightfully be considered largely opinion. That said: There was no real constitutional basis in Florida law for continuing the recounts. Fortunately for the Democrats, the Florida Supreme Court was packed with Democratic nominees, who overlooked that minor matter and would have continued ordering recounts until the cows came home or they got the result they wanted. > (stopping re-elections when counting of the votes are known to be erroneous is never in favour of democracy, is it?) All vote counts are erroneous. At some point you have to stop counting and recounting. Certifying the results is the Secretary of States' job. That's what she did. > How comes someone that subjective - even an important member from the Bush election team - is able to judge about those important issues, which touch the basis of the democracy in the USA? She was the Secretary of State. That was the job she was ELECTED to do, by the voters of Florida. The fact that she was a Republican or Democrat is beside the point. > Between May 1999 and Election Day 2000, two Florida secretaries of state--Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protegees of Governor Jeb Bush--ordered 57,700 "exfelons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. ... Again, "who are prohibited from voting". Removing them from the voter rolls is the proper job of the Secretary of State. They were doing their duty under Florida law. > Someone from the George Bush-campaign team, and a protegee of Jeb Bush, _consciously_ taking away the right of lawfully legal voters to vote. What part of "who are prohibited from voting" did you not understand. > On the other hand, I didn't hear much about democratic people doing stuff wrong... The United States is not a democracy. > Is this all because European media isn't independent and lacking, or is it because American media isn't independent and lacking? No, but that's at least part of it. All the facts are out there if you want to look for them, but the media never makes getting the full story an easy task. > Elections which are not handled by independent people are not democratic, if you'd ask me. If what happened in Florida wasn't election fraud, than it was the contrary of democracy, more resembling feudalism, to say the least. Again, the United States is not a democracy. The elections in Florida were managed by the person the Florida people elected to do so. What happened in Florida was a direct result of the people involved pursing their own purposes while following the dictates of Florida and United States law. The law worked, and the election was decided as it should have been. Bush won the electoral college, as has been determined by numerous recounts of the votes then and since. |
| jdixon Aug 01, 2007 6:40 PM EDT |
> Those are the only elections I vote in on a regular basis. Perhaps unfortunately, I consider it a duty of a responsible citizen to vote, so I vote whenever I can. The fact that I'm wasting my time doesn't absolve me of the responsibility. :( |
| jdixon Aug 01, 2007 6:48 PM EDT |
> Those are the only elections I vote in on a regular basis. So far, with the possible exception of my one paragraph, it's been a largely fact based discussion. Until it stops being so, it's probably not greatly outside the TOS. Now, to get it back within the TOS, though still opinion: It's extremely obvious to me that electronic voting machines should have both the code and hardware open, documented, and certified both before and after each election, and that a certified paper trail, capable of being audited by any party desiring to do so, should be kept. Open source software, open hardware, and a certified paper record are the only means I can see of ensuring fair and open elections. The current mess reminds me of the old joke where Russia bought up Chicago's old voting machines when they were replaced. Daly won the next Russian election in a landslide. :) |
| dinotrac Aug 01, 2007 6:51 PM EDT |
>These weren't human errors, if you'd ask me this was deliberate election fraud What was deliberate election fraud? At most, I've heard people try to raise inferences by who knows whom, but no actual evidence of fraud. Remember -- those ballots have been counted over and over and over again. No count has differed from any other in a major way. if you're going to call fraud, it would be nice to base it on something. >She tried to stop the re-elections several times Do you mean re-counts? Harris followed Florida law on re-counts, and, in fact, a re-count was done. >This exfelon issue, managed by Katherine Harris, led to Bush winning the elections, if you regard it in retrospective. Hmmm. So, you're telling me that there is a strong relationship between being a Democrat and committing felonies? I could believe that, but even I don't go so far as to say so. Seriously, though, Harris was just doing due diligence and applying Florida law. Like it or not, that's what she's supposed to do. Would she have done that if it hurt the Republicans? Good question. I don't know. >I didn't hear much about democratic people doing stuff wrong Doesn't seem consistent with you characterization of Democrats as felons, but... Wrongdoing is a funny allegations, but...things like butterfly ballots, polling place confusion, etc, mostly took place in counties run by Democrats using ballots designed by Democrats. That didn't keep the Gore campaign from complaining about them. |
| jrm Aug 01, 2007 7:38 PM EDT |
> JRM, if it is "Key Largo", that is in Florida, so the quote could be valid. I wasn't the one that put it in quotation marks, but that's fine. I'll do the research. Apparently the Boston Globe fell for this first and then the New York Times reprinted it on December 10, 2000. Here is the link to the NYT retraction: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E3DE143FF... |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 02, 2007 8:09 AM EDT |
Wow. Thank you. I was going to watch the movie. :^) > I wasn't the one that put it in quotation marks, but that's fine. I'll do the research. Huh? I copied/pasted directly from your post above of August 1, 8:40am. If you did,' put the quote marks in, who did? |
| jrm Aug 02, 2007 8:46 AM EDT |
Sorry, I meant the quote from Robinson that wasn't the real quote. Poor wording on my part. It had to be 35-40 years ago when I saw the movie... I'm shocked and amazed that I got the part right about Chicago. (Then again, election fraud and Chicago isn't exactly a stretch of the imagination.) |
| hkwint Aug 02, 2007 3:34 PM EDT |
Well, OK, thanks jdixon and Dinotrac, for making me understand the issue a bit better. To me it seems, the way elections are organized, and which persons have the responsibilities for certain tasks isn't right. All people involved where deciding in favour of their own or their party, if you'd ask me, but who's deciding in favour of democracy? This kind of democracy, by the way also found in the countries in my region, seems more like feudalism with the back-up / excuse of voters. Though there's not much left to discuss, there's one thing I'm asking: Quoting:Again, "who are prohibited from voting". Removing them from the voter rolls is the proper job of the Secretary of State. They were doing their duty under Florida law. No, they failed in doing their duty, because there were people being wrongfully removed from the voter file; though the elected (I seem to get it...) Secretary of State was warned this would happen. Instead of caring about it, she wrote 'DON'T NEED' to the measures DBT proposed. This proposal was meant to let the Secretary of State do her job right, but she ignored it. That's the part I still don't get (forgetting about the court being mainly 'Democratic' or 'Republican', that isn't "trias politica" is it?). |
| dinotrac Aug 02, 2007 6:43 PM EDT |
>because there were people being wrongfully removed from the voter file; Wrongfully removed? I guess we need a definition, then, because I don't know what you mean when you say that. |
| jdixon Aug 02, 2007 7:20 PM EDT |
> All people involved where deciding in favour of their own or their party,... Yes, that's a fair analysis. That shouldn't happen, but nobody's perfect, and everyone has their biases. Florida was merely an extreme example of such. > ...but who's deciding in favour of democracy? Well, as I keep pointing out, the United States is not a democracy. :) Everyone was supposed to be working in the interests of the people, but no one was. That's one of the reasons we have three branches of government, so they can act as checks on each other. In this case, all three became involved (the Florida executive, the Florida legislative, the Florida judicial, and finally the United States judicial). Barring new legislation by the United States Congress, the United States Supreme Court has the final say in such matters, should they choose to take the case. > ...because there were people being wrongfully removed from the voter file;... That's going to happen anytime the rolls are cleaned. Mistakes are always going to happen. As long as procedures are in place to correct them, and the people are allowed to cast a disputed ballot, there's no problem. I believe that's the case in Florida, though I can't say for certain. It's looks like the Florida codes are online at http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/ and searchable at http://www.romingerlegal.com/state/florida.html (warning, this site tried to open a popup window when I accessed it), if you'd like to research further. > That's the part I still don't get... It's a legitimate complaint, but not necessarily a sign of bias. Removing wrongfully designated felons from the voting roles should have affected both parties equally. And, as I noted, procedures were undoubtedly in place to deal with people who wrongfully removed. The only way it would have been illegal would be if they violated existing procedures for removing people from the voting rolls, which is something I don't know . Thus while what they did may have been wrong or illegal, it should not have affected the outcome of the election. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 03, 2007 6:06 AM EDT |
> Well, as I keep pointing out, the United States is not a democracy. :) Sadly, with the combination of party "primary" elections and the 17th Amendment, I don't believe this particular detail is of any relevance any more. Especially the 17th Amendment, which I consider to be on par with the 16th for evilness. |
| dinotrac Aug 03, 2007 6:39 AM EDT |
Hmmm. I can understand your disdain for the 16th amendment, but the 17th? |
| number6x Aug 03, 2007 7:23 AM EDT |
Democracy is fun: I worked as an election judge in the last local election, and then as a poll watcher in a run off that followed. The incumbent alderman for the ward I live in in Chicago is one of two non-democrats, out of 50 total, on the Chicago city council. My alderman in the 35th ward is an independent, and the 41st ward has the only republican on city council. The last election pitted the current alderman against the machine backed alderman he defeated four years ago. There are two major political factions in Chicago right now. Mayor Daley's and Alderman Dick Mell's. Mell is the father-in-law of current Illinois Governor Rod Blagoyavich. Mell was trying to oust the independent alderman and get his person back in. The list of tactics used ranged from petty tricks to criminal. - Lots of anonymous flyers stuffed in mail boxes listed criminal history of anyone with the same name as the current independent alderman, to make it seem like he was a criminal. The fliers have been traced to a print shop owned by Alderman Dick Mell's chief of staff. Criminal charges are now pending on possible non-reporting of campaign spending. - Thousands of phony 'requests for service' called in to the alderman's office in the months leading up to the election. This kept the alderman's staff busy. They would show up to get details and residents would tell them they made no such call. - businesses who showed support of the independent online would get surprise visits from city inspectors. Some reported receiving phone calls warning them to keep their mouths shut. A local lawyer is coordinating the complaints for the harassed businesses and is trying to start a class action suit against the City on their behalf. http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/politics/2007/05/23/big-guys/ - The machine backed candidate reported receiving a bomb threat at her offices. It turns out she was having dinner with the person who made one of the two threatening calls. when the person used their cell phone to call in the threat! The other call was placed from a phone within her office. Criminal charges are pending: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/415690,CST-NWS-bomb06.art... - Legitimate voters challenged. Many long term residents of the ward had challenges files with the state board of elections. Their names on the balloting lists were highlighted in grey, and they were required to show additional id at the time of voting. only a few were unable to show id and their votes were recorded 'provisionally'. From the phone calls coming in to the alderman's office after the election, it seems as if people likely to vote for the independents were challenged much more often than others. - There were also the usual tactics of windows of people with campaign signs for the independent being shot out, harassment of campaign workers and such. At the polls things were pretty calm. The police and the sheriff's office had people on duty most of the day. We had one fight break out outside the polling place. Two campaign workers got into a fight and were hauled off by the cops. The funny thing was they were working for the same candidate. One was a Sox fan, and the other a Cubs fan. They were arguing over Sammy Sosa who was in town playing for Texas at the time. I think you can do much more than just vote. You can volunteer for candidates that you support, or if you don't much like politics you can volunteer as an election judge, or as a pollwatcher with a voter's rights group. (candidates are also allowed to have poll watchers). The system only works if you participate and watch it closely. The politicians are like cockroaches, they prefer to do their work unseen and in the dark. |
| jrm Aug 03, 2007 7:47 AM EDT |
@number6x Classic stuff. I'm from Illinois. You know, it's just south of Chicago ;-) For folks that don't know, in Illinois we give each governor the honorary title of "Not Yet Charged with Wrongdoing". When I was a kid, the ex-Secretary of State passed away and they found shoe boxes full of cash in his closet. Al Capone supposedly said "Vote early and vote often". Capone ran soup kitchens during the Depression, which would make him a philanthropist. They tell me that Bill Gates is also a philanthropist.(Just to satisfy any TOS requirements...) |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 03, 2007 8:50 AM EDT |
> the 17th? Oh yes indeed. It was the act which put fact to the idea that states are merely administrative districts of the Federal government. I'm not saying that things were always fine and good prior to the 17th Amendment, any more than the government took "too little" in taxes before the 16th. With the passage of the 17th, the states _as_states_ lost their representation. How much favor would the artifact that we now know as the "unfunded mandate" have if the representatives of the state governments (who would have to carry the bills) needed to approve them? With the popular election of senators we also lose a barrier to corruption. Why do senators campaign in California, when they're running for election in (for example) New York? Because that's where the money is. The recent failure of a bridge over the Mississippi perfectly illustrates the point of the failures of merchantilism. Who are the owners of the bridge that they can be prosecuted for failure to maintain the bridge? Ooops, can't, it's a government project. |
| hkwint Aug 03, 2007 9:58 AM EDT |
Quoting:Ooops, can't, it's a government project. The government can't be prosecuted? Sounds wrong to me. Today in my newspaper there was a short summary of 'public infrastructure' which was 'damaged', the bridge was one of them, I remember the explosion of gas-lines in the ground of New York, and several more failures. In the country were we in Europe think, 'anyone can sue anybody for anything', how is it possible you can't prosecute the government? Then, what is it that binds the government to their own laws? As far as I'm aware, it is possible to prosecute governmental bodies in my country, for example they were prosecuted for making fire-insecure jails where they put away people seeking political asylum (Yes, people go to jail in my country for seeking political asylum...). A few months later that jail burnt, and about twenty people seeking asylum burnt too. Yes, governments make really ugly mistakes. Like a closed meeting where only Microsoft was invited, in which my government purchased over $150 million of software from Microsoft, though the law say this kind of purchases should be awarded with a European-wide public tender (to satisfy TOS) |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 03, 2007 1:03 PM EDT |
> Then, what is it that binds the government to their own laws? So far, nothing. There are few instances of someone being prosecuted for inept performance of their job, unless their actions exceeded their job description so much that it made it into the news, or were _embarrassing_ to someone in high office. For example, the 5 police who beat Rodney King nearly to death were found "not guilty" in their first trial because they were in fact following the instructions as laid out in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Manual: Hit the suspect until they stay down. However, they were caught _on tape_, it made the big media, there was a large riot, so (violating the double-jeopardy restriction in the US Constitution) they were tried again and found guilty in order to placate the masses. I am unaware of any change in the Manual, but police are much more careful now not to be recorded and to bring charges against anyone who does, even if it's their home closed-circuit security system. |
| dinotrac Aug 03, 2007 1:07 PM EDT |
>So far, nothing. Oh Bob, surely you know better than that. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 03, 2007 1:31 PM EDT |
How can a country with the 1st Amendment have isolated "free speech zones" to keep anyone who might protest out of the line of sight of the politicians? How can a country with the 2nd Amendment have 20,000+ laws variously prohibiting firearms? How can a country with the 4th Amendment have a secret wiretap court that exists merely to rubber-stamp requests for wiretaps? No-knock warrants for non-violent crimes, served in the middle of the night by black-clad machine-gun toting adrenaline junkies? How can a country with the 5th Amendment use torture _EVER_? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P682rGIhZwI Now, show me the long list of politicians and bureaucrats that have been prosecuted for so blatantly and repeatedly violating the basic laws of this country. Until you do, I do in fact "know better than that." |
| dinotrac Aug 03, 2007 5:56 PM EDT |
>Now, show me the long list of politicians and bureaucrats that have been prosecuted for so blatantly and repeatedly violating the basic laws of this country A long list of politicians prosecuted, eh? Don't know what that would prove, as I consider the relative freedom from prosecution to be a strength -- a means of protecting people's choices from arbitrary abuse of power by political enemies. You want to find lots of politicians prosecuted, you could try Stalin's Soviet Union or HItler's Germany. But, WRT to our own country, what say we start with Richard M. Nixon and Sen. Joseph McCarthy? My former governor, George Ryan, was convicted and sentenced to jail (currently free pending his appeal) for corruption. For that matter, former Illinois Congressman Dan Rostenkowski. I guess former Illinois Congressman Mel Reynolds doesn't count because his offenses were, well...different. I could go on, but somebody has beaten me to it: http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/corrupt.txt |
| jdixon Aug 03, 2007 8:28 PM EDT |
> I don't believe this particular detail is of any relevance any more. I agree, actually. We've moved much farther in the direction of democracy than our founders ever intended, and I agree that the 17th amendment was one of the deciding factors. However, especially when you're discussing the theory of how our government is supposed to work and comparing it to how it actually works; it's important to point out that we're not there yet, and that was not the intent when we were founded. |
| jdixon Aug 03, 2007 8:32 PM EDT |
> The government can't be prosecuted? By and large, no it can't. There are exceptions, but in the US, the government is largely immune to prosecution. Dino could probably do a better job of covering the details than I can. |
| dinotrac Aug 04, 2007 2:42 AM EDT |
> in the US, the government is largely immune to prosecution The government can, however, be sued, or, at least, in most places it can. There's a twist to it, though: the only reason the government in the US can be sued is because the legislature (state or federal) passed a law saying that you can sue it. The laws could be revoked, but they aren't. You could, in fact, point to the existence of those laws as strong evidence that Bob is all wet. How powerful (if not always obvious) must the influence of the electorate be if it can force the government to let people file suit against it? There's a second kind of "prosecution": Citizens get their day in court against government actions. In cases of a criminal nature, the government carries the burden of proof. Outcomes can be appealed, potentially to the Supreme Court. That's more powerful than people realize. It's easy to view the judiciary as just another part of the same old government, but it's not. We talk about 3 branches of government, but there are really two divisions: the democratic (or, at least, representative) and the anti-democratic. The judiciary is anti-democratic by design, a hedge against what James Madison called "the tyranny of the majority". Federal judges are appointed for life, can never have their salaries reduced, and answer to no one -- except for personal malfeasance. The judiciary has the legal authority to tell the rest of the government to go jump in the lake. If a case comes before them in which a law causes violation of a citizen's constitutional rights, they can strike down the law. This is one of the oldest principles in American law, going back to Madison v Marbury in 1803. The Judiciary would be really scary if it had any power to go along with that authority. It has no police, no army, no taxing authority. It relies on the moral authority to get the acquiescence of the other branches. In the end, the whole dance comes down to the will of the people. Congress and the President don't really have to go along with court decisions, but they must stand for election. So long as they believe in the legitimacy of governmental roles -- or fear for their own continued power, it more or less works. It has always been possible to prosecute or sue corrupt officials, but their is a catch. Officials are protected from suit for carrying out their official duties. That is annoying but essential. Officials must be free to do their jobs or government would grind to a halt. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 04, 2007 4:40 AM EDT |
> Officials must be free to do their jobs or government would grind to a halt.
Never was there a more perfect reason for such immunities to be abolished immediately. Notice that "just following orders" is no defense for embarrassing underlings and "losers"? I repeat my question: Where is the long list of politicians and bureaucrats prosecuted for breaking the law? It does not exist, because they have granted themselves immunity from prosecution. http://lneilsmith.org/bor_enforcement.html > That is annoying but essential. Dino, look at what you write. Every time the issue of arbitrary authority comes up, you vigorously defend it. Yet when I pointed that out to you, you acted all offended. Well, good sir, here you go again. > How powerful (if not always obvious) must the influence of the electorate be if it can force the government to let people file suit against it? A minor bone thrown to the dogs to keep them quiet, to have exactly the effect you say it does. To placate the masses into thinking they have some influence when, as I said before, those who are prosecuted are only those so corrupt or stupid that they get caught and become an embarrassment. |
| dinotrac Aug 04, 2007 5:32 AM EDT |
>Every time the issue of arbitrary authority comes up, you vigorously defend it. Hmm. Sounds like you use some different version of English than the rest of us. I have never defended arbitrary authority. Perhaps you could let us in on your definition. Speaking of which, I did indeed provide you with a list which you chose to ignore, presumably because it doesn't fit what you wish were true. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 04, 2007 8:10 AM EDT |
> I have never defended arbitrary authority.
Then I will quote you: "That is annoying but essential." "I consider the relative freedom from prosecution to be a strength" That's in this thread, the most quotable sound-bytes that illustrate my point, beyond general tone. Now let me rephrase my question so you won't try to confuse the few embarrassing idiots who get caught with their hands so far into the cookie jar that the media notices (which I pointed out before, and you chose to ignore), with the many who violate their oaths of office daily and retire in peace and wealth: How many prosecutions have there been of politicians for passing unconstitutional laws, and for bureaucrats enforcing them? None, because of what you call "essential" immunity from prosecution. The fact that you believe (and _defend_) that immunity as "essential" is _exactly_ what I am talking about. Either following orders is a positive defense, or it is not. It cannot be a positive defense for some people, like Lon Horiuchi, and not for other people, like those hanged in Nuremberg. Here's my assertion: Bringing government to a screeching halt would be a wonderful thing and save lots of lives. (not to mention money) |
| dinotrac Aug 04, 2007 8:54 AM EDT |
>How many prosecutions have there been of politicians for passing unconstitutional laws, and for bureaucrats enforcing them? So that's what you mean! You should have said so. If that's what you're talking about, then fine. Guilty as charged. I do believe that legislators should be able to legislate without worrying that they'll be thrown in jail if a court later decides that their actions were unconstitutional. At some point in our lives, we have to rely on the judgment of doctors, architects, auto mechanics, police officers and others who could not effectively do their jobs without some room for discretion. *EDIT* I could use the same silly logic you applied to accuse me of defending arbitrary authority to condemn your defense of child molesters. Child molesters rely on a certain degree of freedom and privacy to do their dirty work. You argue for the privacy and freedom that let's them prey on innocent children. I don't believe you would actually child molestation. I suspect that you would condemn it in harsh terms. And yet, you strongly advocate the freedom on which molesters rely. I accept that government requires a certain amount of room to work, and that room opens the door for abuse. As in the case of child molesters, abusers should be sought out and treated in the most unfriendly of ways. You don't like government. Neither do I. It seems that we part ways on whether society can function well without one. I don't believe that it can. You, it would appear, do. |
| jdixon Aug 04, 2007 10:04 AM EDT |
> It seems that we part ways on whether society can function well without one. I don't believe that it can. You, it would appear, do. That seems a fair assessment of both your positions as far as I can tell, yes. Whereas I believe in the absolute minimal government possible. I'd say we have here a fair set of examples of classical liberalism, anarchism, and minarchism. |
| dinotrac Aug 04, 2007 10:11 AM EDT |
>classical liberalism As interpreted by the founders of our country, yes. They provided for a government, but didn't trust it. That's why the Bill of Rights is there and why the second amendment is the right to bear arms. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 04, 2007 1:34 PM EDT |
> At some point in our lives, we have to rely on the judgment of doctors, architects, auto mechanics, police officers and others who could not effectively do their jobs without some room for discretion. All of which have competition and must therefore satisfy their customers in order to make a living. None of which may use coercion to keep customers, or extract payments for services not explicitly requested. Government does not allow competition. Government is by definition a monopoly on the use of coercion, extracting its operating funds at gun point. Hardly a fair comparison. A fair comparison is between the tax man and the mob enforcer, the Mayor and the Godfather. What is most interesting is that many people turned to the mob for "justice" because the mobsters were internally less corrupt than the police and courts. You choose to support an arbitrary state because you consider the alternative unworkable. But what is the alternative? A lack of coercion. Voluntary cooperation by interested individuals to achieve goals. If you want a worst-case pissing match, I'll put the 200,000,000 people dead at the hands of their _own_ governments during just the 20th century (not including wars) up against any private crimes that have been committed. Mere criminals cannot even come close to the shadow cast by the death toll of those who "legitimately" wield their power over others. Child molestation? Did the child consent? No? Ooops, too bad, you can't blame that one on voluntary cooperation. > You argue for the privacy and freedom that let's them prey on innocent children. Damn right I do. The alternative, where there is no privacy or freedom, means death and destruction for children as well as everyone else. Or did you think the cattle-cars were filled with only the consenting adults? That the sick and starving because of government "sanctions" were only some other governments workers? Now please tell me: If you are so against child molestation, and you fully expect me to be against it also, why do you think that you, and I, and other interested individuals (such as the child's parents, relatives, related charitable organizations, etc) WON'T hunt down such vermin and give them the repercussions for their molestation that they so richly deserve? Next, please tell me: Why is it wrong for someone to rob me to support themselves, but it is ok for a tax man to use exactly the same threat of force to pay his own salary? Because it is called a "tax" that makes theft ok? Either something (murder, robbery, rape) is wrong, or it is not. Having two sets of rules, one where something is called theft for some people and eminent domain for others, is hypocrisy. I refuse to be a hypocrite. The more I have read, the more I have lived, the more I have become convinced that there is nothing good that government does that cannot be done more efficiently and more effectively, and with greater "justice", through voluntary cooperation rather than coercion. I have given you several citations and recommended reading, have you bothered? Are you willing to entertain the idea that freedom can work? Even if nothing else, I am very interested in your reaction to the following discussion: http://www.mises.org/mp3/MU2004/Long2.mp3 > That's why the Bill of Rights is there and why the second amendment is the right to bear arms. Which is interesting, because you ignored my assertion that there could not be 20,000+ gun prohibitions on the books _legally_ with the 2nd Amendment in place. That is because government agents are not subject to the law. Not even the highest and most explicitly framed laws, when acting under the _colour_ of law. Which brings us full circle: The government of the United States is immune from prosecution for breaking the law. |
| dinotrac Aug 04, 2007 1:54 PM EDT |
>I have given you several citations and recommended reading, have you bothered? Life intervenes. Wife, kids, broken car, etc. Posting on this forum is a guilty pleasure that fits little breaks. Reading is down the list. So what? >Are you willing to entertain the idea that freedom can work? Are you? You seem only to like a picture of freedom that is precisely YOUR picture. That bodes ill for anything that can work because, oddly enough, other people prefer THEIR pictures. At best, any freedom that is worth having involves some kind of compromise. You seem unable to deal with the reality of that. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 04, 2007 3:34 PM EDT |
> Life intervenes. Wife, kids, broken car, etc. All of which you do without coercion, which is an-archy. Except the kids, over which you exercise non-arbitrary authority. > Reading is down the list. So what? I'm actually quite happy that you decide what you will and will not do, regardless of the opinions of others. It means that you already live your life in an an-archic fashion. > Are you? I'm not the one defending arbitrary authority. By definition, I am entertaining the idea that complete liberty works, and works very well day in and day out already. > You seem only to like a picture of freedom that is precisely YOUR picture. Non sequiter, for two reasons. 1) I accepted your bad-example of "freedom" above, and dealt with it through voluntary cooperation. So even your "bad" picture, that there will be abusive people, I accept because there are abusive people _now_, even in an environment of arbitrary coercive authority. 2) Without coercion, I cannot enforce my "picture" of anything on anyone. If you wish to live your life by some particular set of rules, go right ahead. The limit is simply that, regardless of how many people agree with you (your "majority"), using coercion against someone is wrong. It's called the "Non-Aggression Principle." Non-aggression. This is not _my_ picture, it is the basic rule by which each of us lives our lives day in and day out, including you. Unilateral changes in contracts are considered abuse in every situation we all encounter except one: The state maintains the monopoly on the use of coercion. Logically, that means that there is no requirement for coercion between anyone. The state maintains that monopoly, and people get along just fine. Remove the coercive power of the state and what changes? Nothing, except that your property, life and money are yours to spend as you see fit rather than being stolen by force from you to pay for the programs of other people. Which makes me wonder, why do you object to the idea that I might want _my_ picture of freedom, and yet espouse the need for me to live under _your_ picture? |
| hkwint Aug 04, 2007 3:36 PM EDT |
Hmm, indeed voluntary cooperation would be nice, but sadly voluntary opposition is much more probable.Quoting:Having two sets of rules, one where something is called theft for some people and eminent domain for others, is hypocrisy. So, if I may not kill you if I believe I have proof you killed some other person, neither may the government, so the death penalty should be abolished? Anyway, the only pictures of freedom (lawlessness) I can remember, are, amongst others, in times of floodings (for example Kathrina), where people started robbing each other, and stealing things from each other (talking voluntary cooperation?). I'd like to use my freedom to choose to live in the coercive world rather than in that climate. |
| tracyanne Aug 04, 2007 3:41 PM EDT |
The question remains, how is it that something as important as elections are forced to rely on a known insecure technology, which has no proper audit trail, as to what the software is actually doing, and which can be compromised so easily. |
| jrm Aug 04, 2007 4:04 PM EDT |
Especially since optical scan voting machines are readily available. That's what we use in my county. Results are tabulated quickly, and there's a paper trail to resolve any disputes. The best of both worlds. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 04, 2007 4:13 PM EDT |
> so the death penalty should be abolished? The philosophical literature has gone into this one aspect of "justice" quite deeply. The conclusions are pretty much like this: Restitution works for crimes up to murder, because restitution is "the restoral of what was lost." Since it is impossible to restore life, murder becomes a special case. Without the monopoly on coercion that the state embodies, who could do the execution without themselves committing murder? Complete ostrisization(sp?) and outlawry is a possible punishment. One of the better fiction books to take on this subject utilizes the duel for this extreme situation, where someone who is actively evil would have many people ready to stand up and challenge them. http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn?page=1 Or for people who don't like the comic book format or are otherwise impatient, the "You can't touch me because I'm free too" sequence and duel, with lots of echos of Dino's pro-state arguments, starts on page 159. http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn?page=159 But getting back to reality, most violent crimes in the US are related to drug trafficking and gang turf wars. Without the artificially high profits available to the most ruthless and violent through the various prohibitions we live under, there is less profit to be made by being violent. Just as crime rates dropped after the 18th Amendment was repealed, with the repeal of the prohibitions we live under now those crimes vanish. No one ever killed anyone over aspirin distribution territories. With a removal of the legal prohibitions against self defense, what we would see is a continued experience of what has been seen in every place where private firearms ownership and self defense have been made less illegal: Crime rates plummet. Criminal don't want to die, and the cost/benefit analysis of "take the purse and maybe get shot" means less purses get taken, etc. Those who tend to commit violent crimes would also tend to themselves get killed by their "victims", thus reducing any need for the death penalty still further. But I don't have one answer. I don't have a perfect answer, and I'm not going to say that any particular answer is going to work every time. The state _does_ claim to have the answers, and then fails because of the primary deficiency of arbitrary authority: It is _arbitrary_! As inefficient as dealing with life one case at a time may seem, at least without the state monopoly no one is going to be forced to subsidize or patronize a system they think is unjust or inefficient. Just as with every other free market service, costs drop and quality increases over time. Justice is no different than any other service. The comic above has lots of Socratic dialog discussing one possible system of justice, I highly recommend it. The full novel is good to, AbeBooks.com has it cheap. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 04, 2007 4:18 PM EDT |
> [H]ow is it that something as important as elections are forced to rely on a known insecure technology, which has no proper audit trail, as to what the software is actually doing, and which can be compromised so easily. Because of the state monopoly. We cannot patronize a competing "election" which we trust more, and then abide that other election, like we can with all the non-monopoly services we use every day. "We" in the F/OSS community are well known for decrying the abuse and inefficiencies inherent in monopoly service providers, what magic makes the state the one monopoly that doesn't fall into the same trap? |
| jdixon Aug 04, 2007 6:46 PM EDT |
> ...what magic makes the state the one monopoly that doesn't fall into the same trap? Nothing. Which is why the states were supposed to be largely independent and the federal government to have little power. That way you would have independent states offering competing governments. That didn't last too long. Now the states are largly vassals of the all powerful federal government, and there is no such competition. Our founding fathers actually considered this problem, and hoped they had offered enough blocks to keep it in check. The present state of affairs demonstrates that they failed. |
| dinotrac Aug 04, 2007 9:14 PM EDT |
>The present state of affairs demonstrates that they failed. Well, they supposed that an informed electorate would be more vigilant that we have managed to be. At the time, though, universal suffrage meant suffrage by land-owning men, a group with something to lose if things go wrong. Today, I'm sure they would include women, but I wonder if they would extend the vote to those who own no land? |
| hkwint Aug 05, 2007 5:25 AM EDT |
Sorry for hijacking the conversation, back on topic:Quoting:how is it that something as important as elections are forced to rely on a known insecure technology, which has no proper audit trail, as to what the software is actually doing, and which can be compromised so easily. I tried to fiend out for my country (NL). It's not to save costs, voting with voting-computers is more expensive than counting by hand. It's mainly convenience, incompetence and ignorance, and finally, a vendor lock-in, from which threats by the manufacturers of the software for the voting-computers arose (I will come back to the latter later). It's also because the government gave the organization of the elections almost away to companies (privatization). Therefore, the government isn't even able anymore to organize its own elections it seems. As a result of this privatization, somewhere in the election process, the results of the elections are sent over GPRS using Windows XP (!). Why's that? Probably the same reason some cash withdrawal computers run Windows XP too: Everybody can work with it without the costs and efforts of training; and therefore it's cheaper for companies. Also, in my country, there's a TV show, where the results come in one municipality after the other. Every municipality wants to make themselves look good; there's also always a race to be the first municipality to deliver the results. Being one of the last municipalities, makes your municipality looks like it's still in the stone-age. The efforts of a group of citizens, 'We don't trust voting-computers' has helped though. The SDU-voting computers were rejected two times, because the radiation was too high, and therefore the computers were suspect to eavesdropping; an eavesdropper could pick up radiowaves and thereby determine what the voter voted. This machines won't be allowed, until that case is resolved and the AIVD (Dutch intelligence) confirms the radiation will be low enough to make it almost impossible for eavesdroppers to pick up. The issue of proprietary software, however, still remains. One problem is, the 'deputy minister' doesn't want to lose his face. It seems the (Groenendaal) proprietary Delphi-software which has been in use for years is an organic grown mess (a bit like the Linux-kernel, with the difference only a hand full of persons ever saw the actual closed-source code and nobody wants to speak about it). If that code ever becomes public, it will show the chairs of our governments have been handed out by faulty messy proprietary software for probably over a decade. Therefore, the deputy minister tries to stop making those source-code public at all costs, it seems. It even seems, Groenendaal, the maker of the software* for the only other voting computer (NEDAP), threatened the government. Since the NEDAP was the only voting-computer which could be used after the rejection of the SDU, and the NEDAP computer can't work without the Groenendaal software, the government was locked in to this company. Therefore, the maker of the software threatened to withdraw his support from the coming provincial elections, if the state wouldn't buy his company. Without the help of this single one person (!), electronic - elections couldn't be held in my country. Sounds a bit like Microsoft, not? Anyway, it seems two different committees are researching the problems at this moment, which is the way my country resolves problems in general. In the meantime, it seems NEDAP is working on its own (open/proprietary? Still not known) software, and is also trying to sell lots of voting computers in the US state of New York... (People over there: Awake!) *There's a funny anecdote about the maker of the software: When defending his software by saying it's secure, he said 'You can't play chess on our voting computers'. Not long thereafter, a group of hackers showed the contrary: By some modifications, the voting computers could be used to play chess. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 05, 2007 4:02 PM EDT |
> [universal sufferage] Today, I'm sure they would include women... Prof. John R. Lott, of _More Guns, Less Crime_ fame, has done some statistical regressions/analysis of the voting franchise vs. spending patterns. As aught to surprise no one, within 11 years of granting women the vote (which happened in different states at different times, so it is possible to track), government spending _doubled_, mostly on internal improvements and welfare. I'm not trying to assert that women are not "rugged individualists" and go crying to government for help, actually something of the opposite: Seeing difficulties, women tend to want to help others, so they are more likely to vote for people who promise to "do something". Indeed the competition between states was a deliberate situation that the "founding fathers" were trying to foster. Too bad that the various state governments didn't _like_ competition, the government of Massachusetts specifically complained that Rhode Island was undercutting their import/export duties and taking their shipping business, and therefore lobbied for the creation of a more powerful Federal Government with a Constitution that would nationalize tarriffs and stop that dreadful competition. Thus were the kinds of "problems" with the Articles of Confederation that led to the establishment of the Constitution for the United States. A bloodless counter-revolution that entrenched exactly the kinds of merchantilism the war of independence was fought to escape from. |
| hkwint Aug 06, 2007 2:44 PM EDT |
Quoting:Too bad that the various state governments didn't _like_ competition Indeed, otherwise they would have started to compete to create the most secure, democratic, open and verifiable elections by now. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!