Voting Machines Routinely Failing Nationwide 237
palegray.net writes "Voting machines in several critical swing states are causing major problems for voters. A Government Accountability Office report and Common Cause election study [PDF] has concluded that major issues identified in the last presidential election have not been corrected, nor have election officials been notified of the problems. How long can we afford to trust our elections to black box voting practices? From the article: 'In Colorado, 20,000 left polling places without voting in 2006 because of crashed computer registration machines and long lines. And this election day, Colorado will have another new registration system.'"
Voting machines (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe it would just be easier to bribe Diebold more than whoever is holding their leash now? Saves all that pesky trouble of actually fixing the problem.
Re:Voting machines (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's insane that this is left to a private company to do anything more than fit the parts together.
I mean this is the sort of thing which Open Source would be perfect for.
There would be no shortage of coders willing to review the code and point out any problems.
It would help with the "open" part of "open and fair" election
Re:Voting machines (Score:5, Funny)
Aye, but then thar be no booty in it, and what's good for gold is good for all landlubbers, savvy?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
---
In the States no one can hear you vote.
Party On! (Score:3, Insightful)
It mattereth not much as the nominating process has been privatized as well.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I mean this is the sort of thing which Open Source would be perfect for
I like to use open source thinking when I vote:
Vote early and vote often.
Re:Voting machines (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm surprised that these municipalities don't hold mock elections to test the machines. It wouldn't be so much of a stretch to locally run mock elections. Maybe give everyone who participates a small tax credit. The process could be figured into the overall budget for rolling out new election equipment.
I also wonder whether organizations like Common Cause have many elections' worth of data to show that now there are significantly more problems than before...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm surprised that these municipalities don't hold mock elections to test the machines.
Au contraire, that's what they've been doing all this time.
Re:Voting machines (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Voting machines (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, in many cases, absentee ballots aren't counted. They are only counted if there exists a spread between the first and second place for an issue that is less than the number of absentee ballots received. Otherwise, they're ignored since they can't affect the outcome.
Re:Voting machines (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean this is the sort of thing which Open Source would be perfect for. There would be no shortage of coders willing to review the code and point out any problems. It would help with the "open" part of "open and fair" election
You make an excellent point. A community reviewed and verifiable voting machine system is the best way to ensure that the voters have faith in the vote. Democracy as a concept is worthless if the voters have no ability to verify the vote. If voters can not have faith in the system of elections, then the voters cannot have faith in their government. Electronic voting machines are eroding voters faith in their government and faith in democracy. It's hard to convince people to trust their government if they can't even trust the system that elects the government.
Re:Voting machines (Score:4, Insightful)
You make an excellent point. A community reviewed and verifiable voting machine system is the best way to ensure that the voters have faith in the vote. Democracy as a concept is worthless if the voters have no ability to verify the vote. If voters can not have faith in the system of elections, then the voters cannot have faith in their government. Electronic voting machines are eroding voters faith in their government and faith in democracy. It's hard to convince people to trust their government if they can't even trust the system that elects the government.
You know the problems with these machines and I know the problems, but are you willing to bet (and how much) that the majority of Americans are aware of the problem or even care? Ask yourself how much you would be willing to bet that the majority of Americans care, and if you can't justify a significant amount of assets, you'll have your answer.
Re:Voting machines (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think the problem is the lack of caring, but rather the lack of understanding. When I talk to my mom about this problem, her eyes glaze over and I can tell that she can't quite wrap her head around this problem. She doesn't get the mechanics of the problem and gets frustrated. Once she's frustrated, she can't move on to the other points and develop an opinion.
I saw this when I sold computers and cell phones. People would come in, not knowing what they wanted, try to ask some questions and then end up frustrated when they didn't "get it". They would usually leave empty handed, or buy the one that fit their price point the best. It's not that they didn't care, but rather they couldn't hold all the variables in their head. This problem is similar, non-technical people can't quite conceive of the problem and its intricacies so they'd rather not be frustrated and just ignore it.
This means that those of us that do "get it" need to be responsible in advocating for proper solutions.
Re:Voting machines (Score:5, Informative)
The voting machine tells you things via a process you can't and more importantly aren't allowed to independently verify. But the results seem to be wrong. The machine must be examined to see where the problem lies. They won't let you. How long would you argue in the store that the till was wrong ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I work retail. Most people wouldn't notice if I added an extra dollar to every purchase with over three items.
Re:Voting machines (Score:5, Interesting)
The way I explain it is to say that, contrary to all movies on the topic, computers can lie. Here is what I say:
Computer do exactly what they're supposed to do, and if they're supposed to lie about who won an election, they will. We have no idea how the manufacturer, or anyone with physical access to the machine, may have rigged the election.
Most of the people are convinced at this point. Some are more knowledgable and ask things like 'Don't they check each machine and certify the code?'
Although they check the code, 'this check' consists people carefully looking at the code the computer is supposed to be running.
Which is fine, but then they just ask the computer if that's the code they're running. Which, obviously, the computer can lie about.
There are programs called rootkits, and their entire purpose is to lie during system checks, to present one set of files to be 'checked' and another set to actually run. This is how many viruses operate, presenting one set of files, without the virus, to the virus scanner, and actually executing another set with the virus. It would be easy enough to activate such a program on voting machines, and it would be undetectable without removing the hard drive to scan it in another machine.
Furthermore, remember those cards you carry to the voting machine? Anyone, before the election, could have used them to get such a rootkit onto the machine. Behind that pretty voting application is a standard Windows machine that can run all sorts of rootkits, and the code to write your own rootkit is readily available.
And all computer scientists understand this, that it is in fact a fundamental concept of computer security that there is no way to stop a computer from lying, even to itself. Computer programmers have cracked all the security protocols set up to keep us from copying CDs and DVD and satellite signals, and voting machine security is much much crappier.
I think this gets the point across without being too technically inaccurate.
The People (Score:3, Insightful)
The majority of the people who vote think that they are making a real choice. They believe that Tweedledee or Tweedledum are, in fact, meaningfully different. It's true! They saw it on television.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
More importantly ... (Score:4, Interesting)
If voters can not have faith in the system of elections, then the voters cannot have faith in their government.
More importantly:
If the LOSERS can not have faith in the system of elections, they may convince themselves that they have enough support to reverse the result by force.
The real purpose of elections is not some kind of fairness. It is to head off civil war by convincing the losers of the election that they'd lose the war too. Thus the perception of fair elections is stabilizing and the perception of massive cheating destabilizing.
For this purpose it's OK to come out wrong if the election is very close. But if it is perceived that the election was so badly off that it reversed a landslide, it doesn't just lose its stabilizing effect: It becomes actively destabilizing, causing the losers to believe that a war to reverse it is not just possible, but justified.
Of course the easiest way to create the perception of fair elections is for the elections to actually BE fair and to be fair in a way that is VISIBLE and can be CHECKED.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...this is the sort of thing which Open Source would be perfect for.
There would be no shortage of coders willing to review the code and point out any problems.
It would help with the "open" part of "open and fair" election
Then why not do it? That's how open source works, isn't it? Identify a need and get to it?
Don't stop at just software though. Make a playbook for the entire system that any precinct is free to implement. Call out the check in procedure, how to handle privacy, how to aid people with disabilities, minimum manning requirements, the redundant paper trail, etc. Make an open source rock solid "how to run an election without blowing it" guide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. This would be a perfect cause to start an organization around.
1) Design open source voting hardware / software.
2) Have lots of people try to poke holes in the ideas.
3) Improve them.
4) Build prototypes.
5) Hold a contest for people to try to hack them. Offer prize money. Make videos of the attempts. Put them online. (At this step you're also pointing out the anti-democratic failures of the current designs.)
6) Repeat until you've got an all-but-unhackable design.
7) Take all that evidence and the plans to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you need open source?
Make a mark on a bit of paper, and putting said bit of paper in a closed box - It's easy to operate, easy to understand, failure tends to be highly localised (one bit of paper, or possibly one box full of bits of paper).
Closed source - very bad, only gets reviewed by those that own it.
Open source - bad, only gets reviewed by techies.
Bits of paper with a tick on it - good, anyone who can read can review it.
Does it matter that it takes a bit longer to know the result? Is the potent
Re:Voting machines (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind that the message is clearly and loudly being sent:
"Profit is the most important thing in the United States of America."
Never in so few, or just those words, but sent nonetheless.
"Government should not do anything that can be done by the private sector."
"The Medicare Part 4 specifically prohibits the government from using its buying power to negotiate a better price on pharmaceuticals."
"A company is *only* responsible to return value to its shareholders, while obeying the law."
etc, etc, etc
With mantras like these, what do you expect?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it would just be easier to bribe Diebold more than whoever is holding their leash now? Saves all that pesky trouble of actually fixing the problem.
Too bad diebold already leaked the results early:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks [theonion.com]
big deal (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
However, doctors have made good progress at unravelling the mysteries of their interior designs and workings, and have been making good progress in recent years at 'hacking back together' malfunctioning units.
It should be pointed out that their efforts are being slightly hampered by businesses patenting certain bits of the voter units, methods of interacting with it and chemical processes for alteration of failures and reactions.
Problems: (Score:5, Interesting)
""We're seeing a lot of problems where people are being kicked off the data base rolls if their name is on as Alex as opposed to Alexander or they've put a middle initial in there name and it's not there," said Susan"
It sounds like these problems could have been avoided if the system was designed properly in the first place. Whoever was contracted for this should be made to solve the problem for providing a product that clearly lacked testing.
Re:Problems: (Score:5, Funny)
You can't actually hold companies responsible for their mistakes!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever was contracted for this should be made to solve the problem for providing a product that clearly lacked testing.
Testing? This is a requirements problem, plain and simple. Unless the spec says "Must be able to perform name lookup in the case of name variation, such as missing middle initials or shortened forms", then they would've implemented it.
The real question is, who wrote the requirements for the thing, and why did this get missed?
Re: (Score:2)
Err... that is... "If the spec says". :)
Re: (Score:2)
THE VOTING MACHINE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL PREMIER ELECTION SOLUTIONS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE VOTING MACHINE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE VOTING MACHINE.
And now again, this
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't anybody see Man of the Year!?
Hmmm...So the Diebold system will give McCain a billion extra votes for having two cs in his name and it will give Obama three billion extra votes for having two As? What crazy language are those things written in?
Easy Solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Paper. Pencil. Manual count. Done.
I love tech as much as the next geek. It's my life, and my living. But sometimes, the better solutions are the simpler ones.
Re:Easy Solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even pens can be erased. Felt Tip Marker!
Felt Tips (Score:2)
That's what we use, and the paper ballots are stored in sealed boxes in case we feel the need to do a manual recount.
Unlike those third-world states listed in TFA
Re:Easy Solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Paper. Pencil. Manual count. Done.
I love tech as much as the next geek. It's my life, and my living. But sometimes, the better solutions are the simpler ones.
Its not that computer based voting is a bad idea, its just that it was tackled as a means to make money, not to provide a better voting service. Corners were cut in the name of profits, and the result is the shit systems currently giving the concept a bad name.
Re:Easy Solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it's a bad idea! At the end of the day, any computer-based system is inherently opaque and impermanent, whereas paper-based systems are inherently transparent and permanent. It requires the simplest of skills (literacy and numeracy) to check out the veracity of a paper poll, and once a mark is made it's difficult to erase. Contrast that with computer systems.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree but, for the sake of speed of results and convenience, we will move to an electronic system. I just want that system to print a paper receipt that can be used in the case of a dispute and a recount.
"It requires the simplest of skills (literacy and numeracy) to check out the veracity of a paper poll
Skills which are rapidly disappearing in this
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really need realtime updates with to-the-second exact numbers? Manual counts can have the results available within a few hours if done properly. IIRC Canada does exactly that and they have the election results the next morning, with fairly accurate forecasts within three or four hours after the poll is closed. Anything longer than that is simply incompetence, not something insurmountable without comput
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This system should scale extremely well because the only thi
Re:Easy Solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it is. Computer based voting is a bad idea. Computer based vote counting is a bad idea. I cannot fathom how any honest person who knows anything about computers and computer programming would ever condone the use of computers to count votes in elections. A lot of Slashdotters in particular need to get real on this issue. Technology is great, but sometimes it's better to keep things simple.
When it comes to elections the most important thing is that people have faith in the vote. Computers have never, and will never be able to provide this. This is true today, and it will be true a thousand years from now. A thousand years from now democratic societies will be voting and counting on paper ballots. Lip service democracies and the like will be using computers.
Re:Easy Solution... (Score:5, Informative)
Believe or not, it works without frauds in the 3rd world.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd hardly consider Brazil 3rd World & I'm surprised that you do.
Re: (Score:2)
ballots are like fireworks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I found TFA to be quite enlightening. As a long time poll worker in the People's Republic of California, I have worked through the transition from paper to machine. And I have sort of been mystified by all the hubbub. Now I understand. We haven't ever had the problems cited. Unless someone has hacked the machines, (?), Everything is kosher here. The only problem we ever have is provisional ballots for out-of-precinct voters, and that is just a little extra work as they have to be hand counted, as long as th
Re: (Score:2)
I still believe that a well done electronic voting system can be significantly more secure than the most secure paper ballots.
Re: (Score:2)
We have machines that count the paper. If the software was open source, I think the only improvement possible would be worthwhile candidates.
That will never happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine them 500,000 per 'failure' (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hey (Score:5, Interesting)
As long as my guy wins, who cares right?
Only if your guy is also my guy.
Freedom and Democracy EPIC FAIL (Score:4, Insightful)
it's not too late to fix many of these problems. Although many states don't have the laws on the books to require some safeguards, they can act now to make sure that there are enough back up ballots at the polls, workers are properly trained and there are enough poll workers on election day.
Why does this exact same scenario happen every 4 years? Haven't we learned ANYTHING?
Re:Freedom and Democracy EPIC FAIL (Score:5, Informative)
Its honestly baffling sitting up here in Canada, looking down there and trying to understand how this keeps getting screwed up year after year.
Up here, federal elections are handled by a federal body (Elections Canada), and are done the same way everywhere in the country. Its all standardized. We use a pencil. The whole thing is over pretty fast, and all these problems just don't come up.
Considering how much more often Americans vote, and how many more things there are to vote for, its hard to figure out why the process hasn't been perfected down there yet. If anything it seems to be getting worse.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What I find truly bizarre is this belief that adding more technology to the problem will fix it. As you say, here in Canada we use simple paper ballots marked by hand. Once voting is complete the votes are hand counted. The process is simple, transparent, and reliable.
The American system, by contrast, seems like an exercise in complexity for the sake of complexity. Yeah, there's more people voting, but that just means there's more people who can do the counting. Yeah, the ballots are more complex, but
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In all fairness, I believe the Americans vote on way more than we do. Our ballots have like one, maybe two questions. I get the impression that their ballots read like insurance claim forms (designed to make you fail). They also vote more often, which could make the logistics of hand counting more of an issue.
I want to jump on my Canadian high moose, but I think the Americans just have a very different system overall, and I'm sure someone down there genuinely believed a computer based system would be benefi
Re: (Score:2)
We don't trust our politicians to do it right. I can't speak for everybody, but I'd bet that there is a significant population of us who are worried about handing the entire Democratic process over to congress and saying "Ok, give us something that works well, and doesn't have any crazy or corrupt loopholes in it"
We also can't trust each other to do it right. The most disgusting thing I remember in politics was after the 2000 election, when my party, the democrats, started complaining about all the corrupt
Re: (Score:2)
The important question is not HOW this keeps getting screwed up year after year, but WHY.
If elections were done with paper and pencil, and the processes were fully transparent and observable, and if the several parties all observed carefully, then the elections could not be rigged.
A constant truth in democratic politics is that the party that is in power wants to stay in power. An actual, honest election might not have that result. So, they want to rig the election if they can. That involves changing jus
"In Colorado, 20,000 left polling places ..." (Score:2)
OMG! Zombies!
Where exactly are these "voting machines"? (Score:3, Informative)
Also, when are we going to be able to vote on the internets? You'd think they could work that out by now, right? Maybe the real reason we can't vote by internet is because the politicians know that it would increase the vote of the well-connected (and usually liberal) student population, and they really don't want to do that,...
Re: (Score:2)
I used a touch-screen voting machine in the 2004 presidential election in Falls Church, Virginia.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I just don't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
How can law makers think that it is OK to buy and deploy unproven, closed-source devices to measure elections? There is no other segment of our society that would allow such a mission critical piece of technology to be deployed without independent or redundant systems. My electric tea kettle has been more rigorously tested by third parties than these voting machines.
The only reasons I can come up with are these: 1. The senators are deaf, dumb and can't hear our collective screams or 2. Appreciate the uncertainty that electronic voting machines provide. I believe both could be true varying degrees for most of our representatives. We have certainly all been screaming enough that they should have heard us by now.
What can we do? I've written to my representatives only to get a form letter back acknowledging their sincere concern for my "issue". When I lived in Colorado, I insisted on voting by mail. At least vote-by-mail provided a physically countable ballot. Unfortunately, in the 2004 election, my county clerk FORGOT to mail out a chunk of ballots and I had to vote by fax because I was out of the country. Perhaps the absolute worst way I could possibly vote other than a touch screen.
If you are afflicted by touch screen voting, I suggest registering to vote by mail. At least then there's a chance that some real person will really count your ballot and really record the proper vote. Seems like only a chance these days though.
Re: (Score:2)
How can law makers think that it is OK to buy and deploy unproven, closed-source devices to measure elections?
To save money
There is no other segment of our society that would allow such a mission critical piece of technology to be deployed without independent or redundant systems.
What about the people responsible for the New Orleans Levy system? Wasn't that built under spec to save cash?
My electric tea kettle has been more rigorously tested by third parties than these voting machines.
And those laws are in place now because when such devices first appeared they weren't checked as well and people died.
The only reasons I can come up with are these: 1. The senators are deaf, dumb and can't hear our collective screams or 2. Appreciate the uncertainty that electronic voting machines provide.
or (3), they like the money it saved them because these crap machines cost less then rigorously tested and robust machines.
Re:I just don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or:
4) They liked the money the Diebold lobbyists contributed to their reelection war chests.
Re: (Score:2)
Or:
4) They liked the money the Diebold lobbyists contributed to their reelection war chests.
You win :)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I just don't get it. (Score:5, Funny)
In the US, we take all of the mail-in ballots, and put them in a crate. Then, if and only if there are enough to swing the election, we try to figure out the best way to count them, because we weren't really expecting that to ever happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree that voting by mail should be allowed for anything except exceptional circumstances. When voting by mail, people can sell their votes, or they can be coerced to vote according to someone else's wishes. Imagine a family where the dominant patriarch or matriarch gathers up the ballots and instructs each person in the family how to vote, th
There is a solution... (Score:4, Informative)
athens, tn (Score:5, Informative)
Strangely enough, the last armed revolt against the government in the US was in Athens, Tn. in *1946*. The cause? Voting issues...
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1985/2/1985_2_72.shtml [americanheritage.com]
Not that I am advocating it, but it will be interesting to see just how PO'd folks will get...
Nationalize the voting machine corps? (Score:2)
Follow the footsteps of EFF (Score:2, Interesting)
Why has an organization not filed a lawsuit against the states that agree to use the known failed machines? The EFF just filed against G.W. Is this something that can not be addressed legally?
Write to your representative (Score:2)
It is vitally important that people write letters [rocknerd.co.uk] - actual paper letters, with a stamp - to their MPs, Congressmen or equivalent. MAKE NOISE.
Re: (Score:2)
argh. I meant to post this to the next story. Never mind, it applies to this one too! Where applicable.
The political side of an Open source initiative (Score:2)
Some people have stated that we need an open source voting software, and we do, but can you imagine how it will go over when Sean Hannity begins claiming that anyone can go to the website the night before the election and change the software to vote for their candidate? It doesn't matter if it's not true, bigger lies are repeated every single day, in politics. We would need a limited-access open source project, in which the general public has read-only access, but any changes must be made by a limited group
Re: (Score:2)
This whole election is crazy... (Score:2)
Obama is running with a promise to change America, talking up liberalism, while Bush is actually the biggest liberal this country has had -EVER-. Democrats 100 years of liberal activism, from a financial perspective, pales completely compared to Bush's federal takeover of the entire US mortgage market. I'm looking at drudgereport and I'm just stunned.... I'm almost really drawing a blank trying to imagine what Obama could do that could actually be more socialist then the government absorbing the largest
Re:This whole election is crazy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This whole election is crazy... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've noticed that liberalism has been redefined to include socialism. Liberals used to be guys like Jefferson and Paine
Obama's liberalism is socialism. liberalism in the classic, jefferson / paine sense is really what you would call libertarian... particularly with jefferson.
Bush is more of a conservative socialist, like Hitler.
Except, for well, that democracy part...
If Bush were like Hitler, then, the Michael Moore and Al Gore would not be making billions bashing the guy, but would be in concentration camps. If Bush did what Hitler did, it would be like he would send Dick Cheney to go out and murder Nancy Pelosi to touch off a single night, have Republicans go and murder the leadership of the Democratic Party.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you misunderstand the terms you're using. Federal bailout of the financial industry is not socialist, since the federal government is not acquiring control of the banking system.
Instead, what we have is corporatism, or the beginnings of a fascist state (pick your terms). We have the military-industrial complex domin
Re: (Score:2)
We have the extremely wealthy being bailed out by the government while the rank and file get laid off and foreclosed on.
That's actually not true. What's going to happen is that extremely wealthy will get, at most, pennies on the dollar for all of these bad mortgages and they won't get much at all for stocks in financial institutions. On the other hand, the poor people suddenly have access to a housing market that is now suddenly affordable, and those who are in houses can now make deals but are otherwise
Oblig. (Score:2, Funny)
We do things a little differently (Score:2)
Over here in the UK we have a bit of paper with everyone's names in a grid next to a box.
You put a X in the box next to the MP you're voting for.
Tricky, no?
We need an unelected dictator anyway (Score:2)
Why not? Half of all voters barely know what month it is. The other half would rather blog about it.
Where's the problem? (Score:2)
It's not a bug -- it's a feature.
Sincerely,
Diebold and the GOP
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't we just go with a web based voting system. Everyone could vote from home. Surely noone could figure out how to break that.
You're right. The inter-tubes are perfectly secure and safe. It's unpossible that anyone could break them ;)
Ooh, how about american idol style. And the candidate you vote for could send you a personalized message back asking for more donations.
Now yer on to sumthin. Vote by texting REPUB or DEMO to 6657. Normaltextmessagingfeesapply.
The idea of web voting is a really interesting one, with some really interesting consequences. If you look at broadband penetration and home computing numbers, you'll see an interesting pattern. The highest connectivity to the web is among affluent white folks. These are the same folks that shop from thei
Re: (Score:2)
Oh god, not a poll tax. Has no-one learned anything from the Thatcher government?
Re: (Score:2)
Ordering issues are also why getting humans to count ballots correctly has always been an issue. US ballots are complex for a variety of reasons that
Poll Tax (Score:2)
So only wealthy land owners have a say in the election. Hmmm..
Do you listen to Michael Savage?