Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

E-voting: Democratic or dangerous?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:38 PM
Original message
E-voting: Democratic or dangerous?
Edited on Wed Oct-08-03 06:38 PM by plan9_pub
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3169706.stm

California has selected its governor in an election where many cast their votes not by putting a cross on a ballot paper, or by punching holes in a piece of card, but on computerised electronic voting machines.

In the wake of the fiasco in Florida during the last presidential election in 2000, these machines are seen by many in the US as a way of ensuring a fair vote. They are slowly being introduced across the nation.

*snip*

Diebold has responded publicly to the Johns Hopkins report, though the company declined to be interviewed by the BBC.

Cowards!

Diebold AccuVote Ingredients

Taxpayer money.................$5000
Security Flaws....................328
Critical Security Flaws.........26
CEO commitments to
deliver election to GOP........1
Tamper-proof Paper ballots...0
Tamper-friendly digital
ballots................................At least 32MB
Your actual vote..................None of your business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kitsune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. Any non-isolated computer can be hacked.
This is a basic rule of computer security. Even if you're isolated from outside connections, you still have to worry about inside jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 07:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. each machine costs ONLY $5000 dollars???
If that is correct then the cost of each voter served by each machine would be a couple of bucks per. It's nice to know democracy is so cheap.
Anyway, I like the conclusion here that my own vote is "None of my business". Too true. But I'm afraid no one understands that part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Well, look at the money they are saving
In the old days your vote went for $5-$20 when bought. Thanks to new technology, the middleman (you), is cut out and the saving is passed on to the needy Fortune 100.

David Allen
Plan Nine Publishing
www.plan9.org
www.blackboxvoting.com

Diebold, Inc.
Makers of voting stations with an unprecedented level of crappy security!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. It would be funny if it
wasn't so deadly serious. Last night Democratic diebold counties were among the last to be counted, kinda made me wonder if they were waiting to see if a little "help" was needed to get the desired outcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Oh! That would be a good scheme
Build in a little "do not run (or display) final tally" routine so that a last minute patch or just final go ahead could be sent, giving certain someones plenty of time to check the totals and see if they need any last minute adjustments. Wonder if they thought of that?

Any word out of Alameda and other Diebold counties as to what they hell went on there?

Any reporters curious enough to make a call or two?

Eloriel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Yikes, I certainly
don't want to give those bastards any ideas if they haven't thought of it already. The results were the last to arrive in those areas and it really seemed suspicious considering speed of tabulation was one of their "selling points".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I just heard the "response" to why the returns were so late re Diebold...
and it was because they had instituted "tamper-proof" procedures. Geez, you would think they could come up with something a little better than that given that they had ALREADY said that their machines were tamper-proof BEFORE the election!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovedems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-08-03 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. Floridians votes were none of their business in 2000.
I am sensing a disturbing trend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 15th 2024, 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC