Right to vote being compromised.

Quackzilla

Quackzilla

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
http://www.essvote.com/index.php

Elections where the majority of key states used these damned things often have wierd turnouts, such as an easy democratic win becomes a landslide republican win.

There is no paper trail, no way to prove who you voted for, and ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO VERIFY THE NUMBERS OR DO A RECOUNT!

The code is closed-source.

When I vote in the 2004 election its gonna be on one of these machines. I seriously do not want my vote thrown away.

The electronic voting machines invalidate the status of the US as a "democracy".


If anyone has the resourses, maybe they could leak the code and a schematic, so we can find out how accurate it is.
 
I think they are a terrible idea.

While I don't have the code to leak. There have been any number of articles indicating the horrible security available to protect these machines.

Not that, that is much comfort until the idea is utterly defeated.

CTL
 
With these machines in place, a rigged election can be as simple as a few keystrokes on the right computer. It's actually scary what the results of any election using these machines could be.
 
The government should ask the American people what they think about these machines... Maybe the would reverse their current course of action.
 
[quote name='jeffreyjrose']The government should ask the American people what they think about these machines... Maybe the would reverse their current course of action.[/quote]

Yeah, if this was a DEMOCRACY! pfff.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='jeffreyjrose']The government should ask the American people what they think about these machines... Maybe the would reverse their current course of action.[/quote]

Yeah, if this was a DEMOCRACY! pfff.[/quote]

Interesting thought...
 
And we all know, recounts are the way to get the result you wanted....

I do agree though, as much as I like machines and computers and the internet, I think it's foolish to rely on their current state of technology and security for something as important as elections [of course, they're not *that* important, otherwise more than 1/2 the population would vote]. Especially when we haven't mastered using and counting the regular tools, the paper ballots, yet.
I don't have a problem with the machines in and of themselves, I just don't think they're secure enough yet. There have been many suggestions for alternate plans, involving both the machines [i'm not sure what kind] and a paper trail, but they are still in the testing/research stages.


The worry is the government's 'do it NOW' attitude which we saw a lot of right after 2000 election. To undertake that large a project, and have it turn out well, before the 2004 election would be virtually impossible.

I did read recently, I believe in Reason magazine, that the DoD has temporarily scrapped their support of Internet/online-based voting, due to security, voter validation, potential for paid/forced votes, etc, so that's a good thing.

And to be painfully accurate, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic, representative in nature.
"The form of government entrusted to us by our Founders was a republic, not a democracy.1 Our Founders had an opportunity to establish a democracy in America and chose not to. In fact, the Founders made clear that we were not, and were never to become, a democracy."
"A democracy is the rule by majority feeling; a republic is rule by law."
Couple of interesting quotes about democracy:

"A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils." Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration

"In democracy . . . there are commonly tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth." Noah Webster

all quotes from http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=4
 
Yes are founding Fathers were afraid of a pure democracy, they thought mob rule would come into play and take over. Thats why they made it a republic instead
 
People are going to complain no matter what, elections have been rigged in the past, we had complaints about the chads, and we will have problems in the future
 
Aisde from Florida, it seems we had this voting thing down pretty well. I don't see why the big push for electronic voting is necessary (unless you want to rig an election).

And can someone explain why we still need an Electoral College in this day and age? This just forces candidates to pander to the swing states and ignore the rest of the country.
 
[quote name='jeffreyjrose']The government should ask the American people what they think about these machines... Maybe the would reverse their current course of action.[/quote]

Yeah the only problem is they would use the machines to determine that vote.... and it would mysteriously end up in a victory "for the machines"
 
[quote name='dtcarson']And we all know, recounts are the way to get the result you wanted....[/quote]

Yeah, Al Gore couldn't even get a 'recount until I win' scam to work, which should tell you something.

/FLAME ON!
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='dtcarson']And we all know, recounts are the way to get the result you wanted....[/quote]

Yeah, Al Gore couldn't even get a 'recount until I win' scam to work, which should tell you something.

/FLAME ON![/quote]

Yeah. He's not too good on scams. Before that one failed his "majority of Americans voted for him" scam tanked too.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Aisde from Florida, it seems we had this voting thing down pretty well. I don't see why the big push for electronic voting is necessary (unless you want to rig an election)..[/quote]

agreed...There's always some voter error, some invalid votes, some non-voted ballots [abstains], etc. It only became an issue in 2000 because it happened to be so close. Ideally and fairly, we should have 'started over' with re-votes in each state, and tell people 'READ your ballot, make sure you voted how you wanted to!'

[quote name='MrBadExample']And can someone explain why we still need an Electoral College in this day and age? This just forces candidates to pander to the swing states and ignore the rest of the country.[/quote]

It wouldn't be as much of an issue if there weren't such a thing as 'swing states', which implies that other states are and shall be 'red' or 'blue' states. We're so locked into the two-party system, that I think that would need to change first, and then vote based on a candidate instead of a party.
But the electoral college is meant to balance out the interests of the large-population states with the small-population states. Population-wise, California is 'stronger' than ten other states, but we don't want the President to be the "President of the United States of California, and a bunch of little states"
"The Electoral College is a block, or weighed, voting system that is designed to give more power to the states with more votes, but allows for small states to swing an election, as happened in 1876. Under this system, each state is assigned a specific number of votes that is proportional to its population, so that each state's power is representative of its population. So, while winning the popular vote may not ensure a candidate's victory, a candidate must gain popular support of a particular state to win the votes in that state."
And actually there have been 4 cases where he who got the most popular votes, did not win, I had thought there were only 2. John Quincy Adams, 1824; Rutherford B Hayes, 1876; Benjamin Harrison, 1888; and GWB.
2 more elections had candidates where neither recieved the required number of electoral votes. http://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college2.htm

Election history and politics can really be interesting sometimes.

In general, I'm satisfied as long as A. people don't try to read votes that aren't they, B. all votes count, not just this district or that type of person, and C. voting is restricted to the living.
 
Ok, in all seriousness (as opposed to my last post)...

[quote name='Quackzilla']Elections where the majority of key states used these damned things often have wierd turnouts, such as an easy democratic win becomes a landslide republican win.[/quote]

You cannot say who anyone will vote for. This why we have secret voting. Polls used to indicate how one area (how large or small) will vote can be wildly inaccurate due to people changing their mind at the last minute or just not wanting to reveal how they vote. In this day and age especially, with all the cynics and jaded nay-sayers, I imagine we get a lot of skewed numbers because it's supposed to be funny to not answer truthfully to informal polls, or answer polls in contrary to how someone really feels/believes just to spite the system.

These machines have been around how long? I know my back asswards town has had the optical scanning machines for years. The same years that got Clinton elected twice.

Why weren't we concerned about this back then? Oh yeah...we have to come up with some pre-emptive concerns so we'll have something to point to in case the election doesn't go the way we want. Carry on.
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='dtcarson']And we all know, recounts are the way to get the result you wanted....[/quote]

Yeah, Al Gore couldn't even get a 'recount until I win' scam to work, which should tell you something.

/FLAME ON![/quote]

Yeah. He's not too good on scams. Before that one failed his "majority of Americans voted for him" scam tanked too.[/quote]

*CRACK*

This one just might...yes...it could...YES! That one went straight over his head, Jim! PsyClerk knocks one out of the park and they completely missed the humor! Touch 'em all, it's a hoooooooooooooome run!
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='dtcarson']And we all know, recounts are the way to get the result you wanted....[/quote]

Yeah, Al Gore couldn't even get a 'recount until I win' scam to work, which should tell you something.

/FLAME ON![/quote]

Yeah. He's not too good on scams. Before that one failed his "majority of Americans voted for him" scam tanked too.[/quote]

Absolutely. Seeing as how 50,992,335 people Americans voted for him, the voting age population in 2000 was 205,815,000, and the count of registered voters was 156,421,311. 32.6% of RV, or 24.8% of VAP, is hardly a majority.

And I agree with PsyClerk. We theoretically have 'secret ballots'. So it's theoretically impossible to 'know' what 'should have happened' in an election. Sure, you can attempt to predict things based on statistical samples, pre-election polling, exit polling, etc, but even apart from human nature [this person decided not to vote, that person told the pollster the wrong thing, etc], those kinds of things are inherently flawed and guesswork. Educated guesswork, but guesswork nonetheless. The link I just posted ends by saying "In 2000, as the election approached, some observers thought that Bush, interestingly also the son of a former president, could win the popular vote, but that his opponent, Gore, could win the Electoral College vote because Gore was leading in certain big states, such as California, New York and Pennsylvania." and what happened was exactly opposite that [eventually.]
 
i think that we should just vote like this....someone is elected (i dunno how...electronically for all i care) to stand between bush and kerry as they both are on stage and every american is in front of the stage (obviously in a huge field or something)....and then when that someone puts their hand over bushs head....whoever wants him to win yells "yeah"....and then that someone puts their hand over kerrys head....and whoever wants him to win yells "yeah"....the person with the loudest "yeahs" wins..........it would be about as effective as any other voting system we'll ever see...
 
[quote name='defender']Red Dead Revolver looks really really cool on the Xbox. I think I am gonna open one up and give it a go.[/quote]

and if your stores name is eb, put it back on the shelf and sell it as new :wink:

ive pretty much given up on the idea that voting works, or that you have a say in anything gov't related.
 
There are verifiable voting schemes which can be implemented electronically.

I'm not talking about poorly designed machines like Diebold. I'm talking about elections that are mathematically impossible to be rigged or miscounted. These schemes are heads and shoulders above the electronic and nonelectronic schemes that are currently being implemented by the gov't.

The problem is not electronic voting. Computers can make elections hundreds of times more secure and more reliable than regular paper ballots. The problem is stupidity and corruption in the gov't.

I will repeat. The problem isn't that computers are unrealiable, its that politicians are corrupt and stupid.

For more information on a verifiable voting scheme read here:
http://www.vreceipt.com/
 
[quote name='Scrubking']This thread is LAME/10 and so is Quackzilla with his constant and ignorant republican bashing. :puke:[/quote]

Ah, but does he really bash the Republicans, or does he see some of those in power as being in league with the aliens?

I'll never tell!
 
[quote name='Scrubking']This thread is LAME/10 and so is Quackzilla with his constant and ignorant republican bashing. :puke:[/quote]

What the fuck is your problem?

This thread is about the voting machines vulnerability, which no matter what political preference you have is a major threat to your vote.


To those looking for an argument:

You go to hell! You go to hell and you DIE!

__
Bye the way, how old are you, Scrubking? Yes, I know you are going to lie, so that was a rhetorical question.

I'm surprised that you don't give a shit about the fairness of a US presidential election.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='Scrubking']This thread is LAME/10 and so is Quackzilla with his constant and ignorant republican bashing. :puke:[/quote]

What the shaq-fu is your problem?

This thread is about the voting machines vulnerability, which no matter what political preference you have is a major threat to your vote.

__
Bye the way, how old are you, Scrubking? Yes, I know you are going to lie, so that was a rhetorical question.[/quote]

This stupid thread of yours is about ignorant republican bashing as usual:

[quote name='Quack']Elections where the majority of key states used these damned things often have wierd turnouts, such as an easy democratic win becomes a landslide republican win.[/quote]

You may want to take your foot out of your mouth now. :roll:

And as far as my age, I will say that I am old enough not to go around constantly making stupid and ignorant republican bashing threads.
 
I have chosen not to be baited by Quackzilla...maybe its his name that makes it easy.. "quack" just seems to describe so well.

Dont take this as a personal attack quackzilla but I dont see you posting much on this site beside political banter against the GOP...but whatever... you obviously have an agenda but you know what ...no matter what you say you arent gonna change anyones mind. Name one person on CAG who has said..."huh, I didnt know that. I will vote against Bush now and become a Democrat". I cant think of any myself.

I still want to know if anyone has played Red Dead Revolver.
 
A week or so ago, they had a short segment on this on the Daily Show where it was reported that the security systems being used to protect the validity of this electronic voting system has already been broken into. Don't know if it was true or not, since the Daily Show is a fake news broadcast, but it certainly does seem feasible.
 
[quote name='defender']I still want to know if anyone has played Red Dead Revolver.[/quote]

no, but it looks pretty cool. if i did though, id probably write a review[/not so subtle hint]
 
[quote name='defender']Dont take this as a personal attack quackzilla but I dont see you posting much on this site beside political banter against the GOP...but whatever... you obviously have an agenda but you know what ...no matter what you say you arent gonna change anyones mind. Name one person on CAG who has said..."huh, I didnt know that. I will vote against Bush now and become a Democrat". I cant think of any myself.[/quote]

I concur. There are certainly democrats and republicans here, liberals and conservatives, but threads like this certainly don't seem to change people's opinions or provide good arguments for or against a certain party. So what's the point of posting this stuff? It just ends up pissing everybody off to some extent.

EDIT: As a side note, John Kerry is a douche bag, but I'm voting for him anyway
 
[quote name='defender']Red Dead Revolver is selling really well this week.

I am still wanting to know if anyone is else has played it.[/quote]
I rented it for PS2 today and only played it for 2hrs. It is fun but I don't see any replay value in it. The music in the game is great. RDR controls are ok but nothing great. It is fun but I would not pay $50 for it go rent or open up a copy in defenders case.
 
[quote name='defender']I still want to know if anyone has played Red Dead Revolver.[/quote]

Does it have aliens?
 
[quote name='PsyClerk'][quote name='defender']I still want to know if anyone has played Red Dead Revolver.[/quote]

Does it have aliens?[/quote]
No but it has midget clowns :(
 
In a test run of the exact system being employed a hacker was able to break into the system, change the results of a test election (this was not a real election it was fake generated results), erase any traces of his tampering or his presence in the system and leave in under 5 minutes :shock: . I don't have a link to the article that confirms this but he was hired by the govt to do this and testified that he did it all and how it was done. This is pretty well documented. Can someone help me out with a legitimate refference to this? Anyway the point is your vote will not count. On the bright side nothing will change cause your vote didn't count in 2000 either!
 
Your vote has not counted since the late 40s, when the alien overmind arrived on earth and began to assimilate the upper echelon of government. We are only allowed the illusion of control to keep us pacified.

/my tin foil hat burns
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top