Chip Mefford wrote: > Darryl McMahon wrote: > >>Seems to me there are a few levels to the practice. >> >>First, establishing the mechanics to pull off the theft initially. >>SNIP >>but can't figure out how to provide even a >>semblance of this ability in a voting machine. Anyone else find this odd? > > > Nope. > > Ballot receipts were done away with a very long time ago for a reason. > If you remember your history, you'll remember this.
There is a great deal more to auditability of voting records than a ballot receipt. However, these techniques (e.g., a hash number check total or even a check digit) have not been implemented in the voting machines from the major vendors, although various back doors that permit manipulation of the tally without any audit record of the manipulation have been. I've worked in computer systems a lot of years, including some work in the security side, and that's not just slipshod, it's deliberate. I don't have any recollection of ballot receipts, but then I've only been politically active for about 35 years. Of course, voting machines have never achieved the popularity here in Canada that they have in the U.S. The machines I have seen here have a complete human-readable paper backup - a machine simply scans the check-boxes and maintains a running total. In the event of discrepancies, challenges or judicial recounts, the final authority is the paper record and a human count, not the machine. >>Personally, I'm still a fan of the old-fashioned paper ballot. Simple, >>cheap, completely auditable. The process can be completely transparent >>to the extreme of using see-through ballot boxes (folded ballots). I >>have worked as an election official on many occasions, and can assure >>you that results can be tallied just as fast with a paper-based system >>as with all the fancy, expensive electronics. With scrutineers for >>candidates at every poll count, it's tough to fix the results at that level. > > > I agree all around. > > Esp with a large push for folks to actually get involved in staffing > the polls and such. Also, every single enterprise not directly involved > in providing emergency care and transportation of the sick and injured > (elective surgery doesn't count at all) should be CLOSED FOR BUSINESS > on election day. > > The country has only One Job on election day, only one. Nothing else > matters. > > >>snip >>Personally, whenever anyone whines at me about elected or appointed >>officials anymore, I ask them which candidate they campaigned for in the >>previous election. Voting's not enough anymore (it never was). >>snip >>an individual encounters their "Aha!" moment - once awakened it spreads >>to other aspects of their lives. (I'm pretty much fully-infected now, >>and I was groomed as a corporate fast-tracker.) > > > Well, I wasn't groomed for any such thing. > And I'd not be too quick to make a lot of assumptions > about other folks political actions, either. > > As far as the relative merits of any top level politico > vs. any other, I am still amazed that folks continue to > think that somehow one party holds any particular high ground. Agreed, but then I don't have any loyalty to any party. I still vote for the candidate. Of course, I have more choices than is traditional in the U.S. There are six candidates on the ballot for the provincial by-election taking place here on Thursday. > Back in October 2000, Down in Tri-State (Kentucky, > Ohio,West Virginia) YSA (yet still another) coal sludge > sediment pond blew out, dumping 250-300 million gallons of > coal sludge and just general vileness into the > Tug Fork drainage, blah blah blah, commiting an > environmental disaster blah blah on the scale > of blah blah, when compared to the Exxon Valdiz > blah blah blah. > > Why all the blah blah blah? Because, it's appalachia, > and basically, not to put too fine a point on it, > it appears that no one not actually /there/ gives > a shit about it at all. > > Now, Since Bush was going big big on Domestic Coal > production at the time, in what should have been a > vain attempt to swing a 'always falls to the democrats' > state like West Virginia to vote republican (and they > did, btw), > > This would have been a slam dunk for Gore's folks. Lookee > here! A gigantic enviromental and human disaster, caused by > 'big coals' complete and total disregard for the envionment, > and people, and Bush is out there campaining like big dog > totally on their behalf! We can BURY him with this! > > So, why didn't they? > > Umm, well it could have been because Gore's family, > along with Bush's family, and just about every other > powerful family involved in the US, has a piece of > Massey Energy /somewhere/ in their stock portfolio. > > IN short, the Massey Energy 'ooops' down in Appalachia > (and there have been plenty of those) are HUGE compared > to the Valdiz incident. But, I never hear any tears fall > for the old Tug Fork. > > Gore could have made this an issue, maybe even won on it. he > didn't. Why not? Folks will say "he won anyway" and they > may be right. Personally, I see him as another side of the > same coin. Might be a side I like better, but it's the > same coin none the less. We've had the Tweedledum and Tweedledummer discussion here on the list before. Not my country, but IMO, that's not a real choice because neither presents a credible alternative to the other. Chocolate or vanilla, but what if I don't want ice cream? >>Of course, it helps if there are attractive platforms with credible >>candidates to vote for, but in reality, that's up to us, too. >> >>In short, they can't steal the elections without our consent and complicity. > > > Horseshit. > > "They" have never had my consent, and certainly not my complicity. > This is not some game, where there are rules, fouls and penalties. > If there are any, then the rules are only for the 'commoners' not the > rulers. My understanding is that close to half the eligible voters (over 40%) in the U.S. did not exercise their franchise in the last federal election. That's a lot of complicity, IMO. If "not to decide is to decide", then "did not vote" was the winning candidate. There are most definitely rules, we call them laws. Whether they are enforced or not is another matter. I think the final treatment of Tom DeLay will speak volumes on that subject. One tool Americans have that I behold in awe is the ability to impeach a sitting President. It's truly ironic that one of the arguments I hear against impeaching GWB is that it would vault Dick Cheney into the Oval Office. Is there any prohibition against impeaching two in rapid succession? My understanding of U.S. law says there is not a set of rules for commoners and another for rulers. If this is not the practice, the commoners have the tools to set things back on course, but only if they shake off their complacency and choose to do so. It won't happen overnight, it could take a couple of years. Mid-term elections should be on the horizon. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke Democracy is not a right, it's a responsibility. -- Darryl McMahon http://www.econogics.com It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
