Cafferty wants to know if voting e-machines should be outlawed

[me b zola]

4 p.m.: Who do you trust when it comes to Iran's nuclear program: the United States or the International Atomic Energy Agency?

5 p.m.: Should electronic voting machines be outlawed?

7 p.m.: How can France help the United States end the war in Iraq?


http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5t.html?65




This sounds like a job to DU!! :bounce:

[me b zola]

1. I will crosspost this in the election forum

[bryant69]

2. I wonder if DU has one voice on this issue

If you asked the question "should our voting system be reformed to be more transperent and verifiable" we'd all agree on the answer, I hope. But outlawing electronic voting machines may not necessarily lead to this result.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[me b zola]

5. Cafferty's questions are not "y" for yes & "n" for no

This is an opportunity to discuss the problems and issues with the e-voting machines. Make your case. :hi:

[EFerrari]

6. People usually only disagree on this one when they don't know

how the technology really works.

If you ask them if they would use ATMs that give you no accounting of your bank balance, they get the point pretty quickly.

[bryant69]

7. Well yeah but is the answer

"So let's dispense with Electronic voting altogether" or "Let's install in electronic voting the same sort of guarentees we have in our ATM machines?"

Bryant

[EFerrari]

8. I see what you mean. And some people would argue that

if the voting machines were as accountable as ATMS, we should use them.

Imho, HAVA - mandated DREs are institutionalizing election fraud. I'd rather make the theives work much harder to steal my vote. Make them deal with many pounds of paper, whatever, just don't make it so easy.

[Nederland]

10. Exactly

The devil is in the details. Done correctly, electronic voting can both improve access to minorities and the handicap, as well as provide fraud prevention safeguards that are impossible with paper ballots.

[EFerrari]

11. Except that the technology will never be used that way, imho.

There are always people who try to cheat and the technology just makes it easier to do. And, are you sure about improving access for the handicapped? I know that is the claim but I haven't seen anything that really substantiates that. :shrug:

[SoCalDem]

19. The handicapped people I have heard from have issues with

access to the polling PLACES more often than with the ballots.. Most handicapped people I know, have used absentee balloting anyway, and have had plenty of help from friends/family..

The handicapped aspect of this was the red herring.. Anyone who dared to stand up and complain, would have been labeled a "handi-hater"...and would have been castigated for not wanting handicapped people to vote..

HAVA was a briar patch issue, and the dems fell into it..bigtime..

It's got Rover's greasy fingerprints all over it..

We need STANDARDIZATION of ballots....PAPER BALLOTS..

and the hiring of enough COUNTERS at each polling station..
(the money wasted on vapor-vote machines would have been more than enough)

and we need to separate NATIONAL elections from local.. I have advocated for a simple 5x7 card for voting.. There would never be more than THREE races (vote in under 45 seconds)

National races in even years.. local/state in odd years..

How the states fill their ballots with referendums, judgeship races, dogcatcher races is of NO concern to me, BUT I do care how they elect their congresspeople/senators/and president..

THAT part needs standardization..

With only 3 (usually 2) races on a simple card, HOW HARD COULD IT BE TO COUNT AND RECOUNT?

A 5x7 card and a sharpie..

They could even put a photo next to the name if necessary..

[tk2kewl]

3. Done K&R

:kick:

[EFerrari]

4. Done!

:bounce:

[me b zola]

9. The 4pm question sounds interesting too

Let's see, the IAEA war right about Iraq, the US was wrong...

[me b zola]

12. Here's my full answer:

Is this a trick question, Jack? The IAEA was right about Iraq, the US was dead wrong. Of course, that was the US government under republican rule. If it had been the Democrats in the White House, they would have listened to the experts in the IAEA and our own intelligence community. We can’t afford--in blood or treasure-- to have another set of republicans in office to take us down this same road again.

[EFerrari]

14. I never watch this show. When will he read the responses?

Mine was to use autorank's "ham sandwhich" analogy and to point out I don't want to vote on tech brought to me by Abramoff and Ney. lol

[me b zola]

16. He just read this question

...and will read the answers in the last 15 minutes of the hour--anytime from 5:45-5:55 est. Usually it is the last five minutes of the hour, but sometimes he is early :hi:

[EFerrari]

17. Thank you! I really like Jack, it's his cohorts I can't watch.

But, I will today!

:)

[LSK]

13. my answer: "Duh!"

[Fridays Child]

15. Thanks for the link. I just wrote...

Electronic voting machines should be outlawed, immediately. Not only are they eminently hackable but, now, we learn that the same keys that open mini-bars and desk drawers also open Diebold machines (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/18/135828/718).

They couldn't have built a more flawed system, if they'd tried. But, maybe, building a hackable machine is exactly what they intended to do. I mean, come on, this is the same company that builds little fortresses known as ATMs. Those machines sit outside, full of cash and bank records, unguarded, all over the country, and you almost never hear about any hacking or theft problems there.

[me b zola]

18. That's a good response!

:thumbsup:

I'm not nearly as happy with mine:

What should be outlawed is elections that are not transparent and verifiable. If that means outlawing e-voting machines and going back to paper ballots, then I’m all for it. Law makers act as though it is more important to know the results of an election four hours after the polls close than it is to have an honest election result. If the right to vote and have that vote counted is sacred to a democracy, then what we practice here in the US is not democracy at all.


I think I'll write another. :hi:

[Fridays Child]

21. No, no, no!

Your letter provides a broader perspective and is a perfect corollary to the specific issue of electronic voting machines. Please send it as is.

:)

[Habibi]

25. I agree

I think both your responses are great. Wish I had cable just to see if he reads either one!

[EFerrari]

27. We'll post to the thread if he does.

:hi:

[me b zola]

29. Well, I did send it, but I wish that I had proof read it better

:D

The line about the right to vote being sacred to a democracy---well it is, but in the context that I was writing it would have been better if I had said necessary.

I sent another one anyway, there are so many things to say about this issue, Cafferty should get many different bits of info to chew on. I posted my other response down-thread. It contains a bit of finger pointing/whining--I couldn't help it. :D


BTW, I still like your letter :)

[ContraBass Black]

20. No.

That they're electronic isn't the problem. The problem is that they're insecure, run on secret systems, do not have easy verification systems built-in, and are designed to invite tampering rather than deter it.

[w4rma]

33. Yes they should be outlawed. Neither politicians nor the public understand

technology enough to *ever* make these systems secure.

Paper ballots are the only secure method of voting that I know of at the moment. Simple enough for the public and politicians to understand and easy to use.

We'll be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on an electronic voting system that will *never* be secure if we keep going the touch screen, even with paper trails, way.

[Initech]

22. Should they be outlawed? Um........... fuck yeah!

[me b zola]

23. Here's my second stab at it:

I find it strange that activists have know since the 2000 election that there were significant problems with e-voting, yet it is not until the Democrats are in position to take back Congress that this issue gets any press. So now that we have some measure of attention from the media, let me stress that this is not a partisan issue, it is a Constitutional issue that is the difference between living in a democratic republic or a banana republic. A non-transparent, unverifiable election in another nation would not be certified under international standards, why should it be here?

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. my answer

Should electronic machines be outlawed? YES, that is the simple answer

There are too many problems with the machines insofar as securing the vote. They should be outlawed and the country should go back to paper ballots. For the moment I do not trust my vote to Diebold, Sequoia or any other company in the business. We must be nuts, to privatize elections! Who'd thunk of it? Then again Ben Franklin told us, we would have a Republic as long as we chose to keep it. It seems we are choosing not to...

[Gregorian]

26. Verification. Verification is the issue. Not electronic. Not optical.

Not paper. Not word of mouth. Not Aldis lamp. Not heliograph.

Wrong question. Unless verification isn't allowed. Then electronic should be disallowed.

[EFerrari]

28. I agree! But, concrete (get rid of machines) is easier to present

than abstract (we have no transparency).

You're right, of course!

[me b zola]

30. sfexpat, I've been meaning to tell you...

I freaking love your sig line! I saw that speech from Ann on Democracy Now! the morning after(or was it the middle of the night?--whatever) she passed. "I don't know how we're going to resolve this problem..." :rofl:

[EFerrari]

32. It's so Ann!

lol

[EFerrari]

31. HA! I didn't recognize any of ours but the ones he read were great!

:toast:

[me b zola]

34. The first one was from a Jeanette in Florida...

We have a Jeanette in FL...I wonder if it was her? It was a great letter!

[Jeanette in FL]

35. Yes, it was. I am so excited.

Here is what I wrote:

Jack, Everyone is wondering if Democracy is at risk with the use of Electronic Voting Machines. How do we know that Democracy wasn't already lost in 2000 and 2004? We will never know with certainty that those elections weren't tampered with.

Back to paper ballots and hand counting, if it takes longer, so be it. At least we will know that our votes counted.

Jeanette in Florida

[EFerrari]

37. Good going and thank you!

:toast:

[me b zola]

39. Congratulations!!!

That was a great letter!!!! Geez, girl, how come you didn't make your own thread for a few pats on the back??

Jeanette in Florida, :applause: :woohoo: :yourock: :bounce:

[Jeanette in FL]

40. Maybe I will

Everyone enjoys a little attention. LOL.

[EFerrari]

36. They were all *excellent*! Such a relief that people are getting it!

[JNelson6563]

38. Here's mine, let me know if he reads it

and I highly doubt he will:

Yes, electronic voting machines should be outlawed. There must be a paper trail so that all votes can be verified. If we settle for anything less here in America we continue to be a laughingstock to the world with our claims of "spreading democracy".


Julie

[Wilms]

41. K&R n/t