NationStates Jolt Archive

Senator Dianne Feinstein released the following on her website (http://feinstein.senate.gov/06releases/r-voting-reform1201.htm):
A summary of the Ballot Integrity Act follows:

The Ballot Integrity Act

* Paper Records, Voter Verification and Audit: Requires that voting machines produce a paper record that voters can verify, and correct if necessary, after casting their vote. Also requires that the paper record be preserved and used in a mandatory, random audit.

* Electronic Voting System Security: Takes measures to prevent technological manipulation of electronic voting systems and requires that all voting system software be disclosed to and certified by the Election Assistance Commission.

* Campaign Activities by Election Officials: Prohibits a chief state election official from serving on any political campaign committee of a candidate for Federal office, making any public comments in support of a candidate in an official capacity, or soliciting political contributions on behalf of any candidate for Federal office.

* Official Election Observers: Grants all official, legitimate domestic and international election observers unrestricted access to the election process, provided that they accept election rules, do not interfere with the election process, respect the secrecy of the ballot and are accredited by the Election Assistance Commission.

* Military and Overseas Voting: Makes it easier for overseas and military voters to send in absentee ballot requests, absentee ballots and voter registration forms by prohibiting states from refusing to accept ballots and registration forms due to non-essential requirements (such as size and stock of paper, and whether or not it is notarized).

* Enforcement of HAVA Provisions: Clarifies that individuals can pursue legal resolution of violations of the Help America Vote Act. Permanently extends the authorization of the Election Assistance Committee. Requires that contractors hired by the Commission go through a public bidding process.
This has been an issue of mine for years. I even tried writing a Nationstates issue dealing with it some years ago--it didn't make the cut. But this is an issue that should be a bipartisan one, and I've always argued that. Sadly, in previous Congresses, bills introduced by Rush Holt and Hillary Clinton, even though they had nominal bipartisan support (read: a handful of republicans signed on at best) were always killed by the Republican leadership. Hopefully this can get true bipartisan support and get passed into law.

Where is the "I'm not in a position to support nor oppose it" option?

Sorry, I seem to not like polls tonight.

I would support this.

Paper trail all the way. (recycled paper) If someone wins by just a few votes the we absolutly, have to be sure who won!

Paper trail all the way. (recycled paper) If someone wins by just a few votes the we absolutly, have to be sure who won!
Exactly. I'm following the FL-13 case fairly closely right now, seeing as I live in Florida and we're the laughingstock of voting issues. 18K undervotes in the Congressional race, one fo the most hotly contested in the nation, and there's no way to check for the intent of the voter because there's not a single scrap of paper to check against the machines.

Where is the "I'm not in a position to support nor oppose it" option?

Sorry, I seem to not like polls tonight.

Actually, it's the polls that don't like you...

Exactly. I'm following the FL-13 case fairly closely right now, seeing as I live in Florida and we're the laughingstock of voting issues. 18K undervotes in the Congressional race, one fo the most hotly contested in the nation, and there's no way to check for the intent of the voter because there's not a single scrap of paper to check against the machines.

Yeah, I live in District 13. This bill sounds like a good idea to me. (I'm too young to vote yet, though.)

Actually, it's the polls that don't like you...

Preposterous. I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh darn it, polls like me!

Senator Dianne Feinstein released the following on her website (http://feinstein.senate.gov/06releases/r-voting-reform1201.htm):

This has been an issue of mine for years. I even tried writing a Nationstates issue dealing with it some years ago--it didn't make the cut. But this is an issue that should be a bipartisan one, and I've always argued that. Sadly, in previous Congresses, bills introduced by Rush Holt and Hillary Clinton, even though they had nominal bipartisan support (read: a handful of republicans signed on at best) were always killed by the Republican leadership. Hopefully this can get true bipartisan support and get passed into law.

This is something that I will support. We have to look after our troops overseas. And paper trails aren't a bad idea either. :P

I really don't like Feinstein but I definitely support this legislation. High time we had something of this nature done.

I really don't like Feinstein but I definitely support this legislation. High time we had something of this nature done.

I second that feeling.

bump

*snip*...Hopefully this can get true bipartisan support and get passed into law.

I would openly question the motives and reasoning of anyone who does not support this legislation.

If one does not desire fair, open and legitimate elections, then I hate to think what their true political desires might be.

Paper trail? Bah! We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!

Paper trail? Bah! We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!

*questions LG's motives and reasoning*

*realizes the futility of such a line of questioning*

*wanders off*

I would openly question the motives and reasoning of anyone who does not support this legislation.

If one does not desire fair, open and legitimate elections, then I hate to think what their true political desires might be.There have been lots of congresscritters who have kept this down and away from debate. Guess which party they belonged to? Rush Holt has had similar legislation before the House for the last 3-4 years, I believe, with over 200 co-sponsors, and couldn't get it to the floor of the House for a vote. Let's see if a change in leadership can make a difference.

There have been lots of congresscritters who have kept this down and away from debate. Guess which party they belonged to? Rush Holt has had similar legislation before the House for the last 3-4 years, I believe, with over 200 co-sponsors, and couldn't get it to the floor of the House for a vote. Let's see if a change in leadership can make a difference.

Meh...I could guess, but I didn't vote for a single incumbent last month except for Governor, so I really don't care.

As you said, we will see if new leadership makes a difference.

Senator Dianne Feinstein released the following on her website (http://feinstein.senate.gov/06releases/r-voting-reform1201.htm):

This has been an issue of mine for years. I even tried writing a Nationstates issue dealing with it some years ago--it didn't make the cut. But this is an issue that should be a bipartisan one, and I've always argued that. Sadly, in previous Congresses, bills introduced by Rush Holt and Hillary Clinton, even though they had nominal bipartisan support (read: a handful of republicans signed on at best) were always killed by the Republican leadership. Hopefully this can get true bipartisan support and get passed into law.
This is an imperative measure. Someone needs to improve the integrity of elections in the US. Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 tends to raise doubts about the electoral process and puts the US in a poor light.

Hopefully this measure will suceed.

Then scrap the Electoral College to enable ALL Americans to vote for the President of THEIR choice. Pure, simple democracy.

*questions LG's motives and reasoning*

*realizes the futility of such a line of questioning*

*wanders off*

*flings handfuls of mini-marshmallows everywhere* :D

*flings handfuls of mini-marshmallows everywhere* :D
*pulls out flame thrower and toasts them in midair. :D

*pulls out flame thrower and toasts them in midair. :D

*eats*

*pulls out flame thrower and toasts them in midair. :D

Now there's something you don't see everyday. :)

Can we do popcorn next?

*throws firecrackers*

rants all official, legitimate domestic and international election observers

Ugh.

International election observers.

Otherwise a surprisingly good bill, but due to this one I'd vote against it if I were in Congress.

Ugh.

International election observers.

Otherwise a surprisingly good bill, but due to this one I'd vote against it if I were in Congress.

What's wrong with them?

If the board of Diebold were mainly Democratic, they wouldn't give two diddly shits about paper trails

This is an imperative measure. Someone needs to improve the integrity of elections in the US. Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 tends to raise doubts about the electoral process and puts the US in a poor light.

Hopefully this measure will suceed.

Then scrap the Electoral College to enable ALL Americans to vote for the President of THEIR choice. Pure, simple democracy.
On a good day, Congress might ban gerrymandering (so the electorate chooses a congressman, not a congressman choosing his electorate) and have some vague proportional representation.

What's wrong with them?

They're foreign election observers, judging a nation's elections by their standards (which could be all wrong, or just plain different).

and have some vague proportional representation.

As a person who lives in a country with proportional representation - just no.

lets use so much paper there is no more trees, who needs 'em anyway?

I do support a fairer way of taking to the polls. Another major problem is the voter turn out. We are way too low. I personally feel that we ought to be up there in the 70s.

The polls definately needs improvement and so does the voter turnout.

lets use so much paper there is no more trees, who needs 'em anyway?

I do believe a few people mentioned "recycled paper".

Transparency=good. I support it.

As a person who lives in a country with proportional representation - just no.

In what way is a proportional system worse than the current US system?

If the board of Diebold were mainly Democratic, they wouldn't give two diddly shits about paper trails

And when politicians do the right thing are we supposed to condemn them because they're doing it for the wrong reason?

Or do you just like making a mockery of democracy?

Maybe this is just a tipoff of what's to come in the Democratic Congress next year. What I object to is not any of the specific provisions, but the appearance that this is going to be yet another tremendously expensive and unfunded mandate from our Federal government.

We need to let the states decide how to record votes and provide security for the voting machines. If the security or the method of recording votes is questionable, then let the litigation begin.

Maybe this is just a tipoff of what's to come in the Democratic Congress next year. What I object to is not any of the specific provisions, but the appearance that this is going to be yet another tremendously expensive and unfunded mandate from our Federal government.

We need to let the states decide how to record votes and provide security for the voting machines. If the security or the method of recording votes is questionable, then let the litigation begin.

Speaking of wasting money...

Or do you think the state courts will be cheaper?

Fried Tuna;12034321']In what way is a proportional system worse than the current US system?

You don't get majorities, and you're forced to deal with coalitions. Because coalitions force parties to change their preferred policies, the voters don't actually get what they voted for, but for something designed to get a party to be able to have a leadership role in power.

I do believe a few people mentioned "recycled paper".

so, there is something called humor, and by the way, trees are evil, they need to burn, like ara- I mean witches!

Speaking of wasting money...

Or do you think the state courts will be cheaper?

I don't care. I think it's the right way. If government were all about saving money, then it would certainly be more efficient not to have elections at all. Or at least return to the days when Governors appointed Senators and the electoral college didn't need the popular vote to apportion Presidential votes.

so, there is something called humor, and by the way, trees are evil, they need to burn, like ara- I mean witches!

:confused:

I don't care. I think it's the right way. If government were all about saving money, then it would certainly be more efficient not to have elections at all. Or at least return to the days when Governors appointed Senators and the electoral college didn't need the popular vote to apportion Presidential votes.

You took a shot at the law on account of unfunded mandate status, but I'm showing that it saves money.

Of course, if you "think it's the right way" I suppose facts aren't likely to get in the way.

:confused:

hehe.

If the board of Diebold were mainly Democratic, they wouldn't give two diddly shits about paper trails
I would, but then again, when it comes to elections, I'm an idealist, not an asshole.

Maybe this is just a tipoff of what's to come in the Democratic Congress next year. What I object to is not any of the specific provisions, but the appearance that this is going to be yet another tremendously expensive and unfunded mandate from our Federal government.

We need to let the states decide how to record votes and provide security for the voting machines. If the security or the method of recording votes is questionable, then let the litigation begin.

Letting the states handle it is how we wound up with such a fucked up system to start with.

Electronic Voting System Security: Takes measures to prevent technological manipulation of electronic voting systems and requires that all voting system software be disclosed to and certified by the Election Assistance Commission.

Hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of government software developers are complete morons. And so is the vast majority of government contractors who do this sort of work.

Most are incapable of evaluating even the simplest software code.

I might add that even if you handed over the source code to the government, odds are very, very good that they would have no fucking idea of what it was doing.

Hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of government software developers are complete morons. And so is the vast majority of government contractors who do this sort of work.

Most are incapable of evaluating even the simplest software code.

I might add that even if you handed over the source code to the government, odds are very, very good that they would have no fucking idea of what it was doing.

It's a start, though. Best option to my mind would be open source code, but as long as we're moving away from the idea that source code for election systems can be considered proprietary and trade secret, I consider it a good step in the right direction.

It's a start, though. Best option to my mind would be open source code, but as long as we're moving away from the idea that source code for election systems can be considered proprietary and trade secret, I consider it a good step in the right direction.

Open source is nice - no guarantee that what's compiled is the same as what is sitting out there in open source, without examining it line by line.

Also, I think that there isn't a single government agency that has people writing software (aside from the NSA) that has the remotest chance of being able to evaluate the code. There are entire agencies that have everyone from the director on down who couldn't evaluate a "Hello World!" application if they had it explained to them.

Open source is nice - no guarantee that what's compiled is the same as what is sitting out there in open source, without examining it line by line.

Also, I think that there isn't a single government agency that has people writing software (aside from the NSA) that has the remotest chance of being able to evaluate the code. There are entire agencies that have everyone from the director on down who couldn't evaluate a "Hello World!" application if they had it explained to them.So what would satisfy you? I'm open to suggestions here, as long as it moves away from independent companies being able to count the votes and not have to tell anyone how they're doing it or provide any auditable paper trail.

So what would satisfy you? I'm open to suggestions here, as long as it moves away from independent companies being able to count the votes and not have to tell anyone how they're doing it or provide any auditable paper trail.

I don't have a plausible solution.

1. I can write software that will record a vote one way, and print out another. Unless you're really, really good at writing software, you'll have no idea it is happenning unless you count the paper votes by hand EVERY time the votes are counted electronically. Sort of defeats the idea of electronic voting, doesn't it?

2. I can take open source software, modify it, and unless you check it closely, I can tell you I'm running the open source software (let's say Tomcat or Maven 2.0), and you'll have no idea I'm running the modified version.

3. I can build one version using the certified open source copy - and put the altered version on selected voting machines - you'll have no idea unless you check every single machine every single time they are used.

4. There are ways to cheat the old mechanical machines (the kind where you used to pull a big lever). There are ways to cheat counting paper votes. This is largely a matter of trust - IMHO, it's easiest to cheat counting (or throwing away, or invalidating) paper votes.

Just look at Florida...

How many people's votes were incorrectly filled out because of confusion?
How many people's votes were thrown out?
Misinterpreted?
Thrown away?
Double punched or mis-punched?
How many military people had their votes thrown out because of protests by the Gore camp that they didn't deliver the absentee ballots on time?
How many votes were stomped on by Republicans when the Supreme Court just told everyone to stop counting and shut up?

This is about trust - I feel that there are ways to design software systems to be far more trustworthy than paper - and far less prone to error and subversion - but it has to be designed that way, and that design has to be expressed to the public in a way that even a simpleton can understand.

Most people have no idea that the traditional non-computer methods of voting are extremely susceptible to abuse - or have conveniently forgotten how the dead vote, how people vote multiple times, how ballot boxes are "lost", etc.

I can answer one of those questions definitively, Eve Online, the one about how many military ballots were tossed because of complaints by the Gore camp. The answer is zero, even though they were within their rights to challenge ballots that were mailed after election day. They decided the negative press would outweigh any potential electoral gain, not that it mattered--the press had it in for Gore from the start. What's amazing is that Gore won that election in spite of it.

As to election systems, I'm in favor of systems that fail well--every system will have failures, after all. The key is to have on with backups. Of all the time I've been a voter, the system I felt the most confidence with was the optical scan voting machines, because there was a piece of paper with my vote on it that could be counted by hand both to check the machine or in case of a machine failure. That seems to me to be the best combination of technologies.

I don't have a plausible solution.

1. I can write software that will record a vote one way, and print out another. Unless you're really, really good at writing software, you'll have no idea it is happenning unless you count the paper votes by hand EVERY time the votes are counted electronically. Sort of defeats the idea of electronic voting, doesn't it?

2. I can take open source software, modify it, and unless you check it closely, I can tell you I'm running the open source software (let's say Tomcat or Maven 2.0), and you'll have no idea I'm running the modified version.

3. I can build one version using the certified open source copy - and put the altered version on selected voting machines - you'll have no idea unless you check every single machine every single time they are used.

If I were going to spec out this software, I'd require a stable core that was configured for each election via a text file. Once the executable is loaded in an EPROM, there's no way to re-program it. We also require that the software must boot from the EPROM version, and no other source. Now, we also include the requirement for a test that would compare the printed vs. the recorded votes. If the data file for the test is also generated and distributed from a source that is different from the source that creates the ballot, I think we have gone a long way to eliminate an overwhelming number of the software shenanigans that are possible.

I can answer one of those questions definitively, Eve Online, the one about how many military ballots were tossed because of complaints by the Gore camp. The answer is zero, even though they were within their rights to challenge ballots that were mailed after election day. They decided the negative press would outweigh any potential electoral gain, not that it mattered--the press had it in for Gore from the start. What's amazing is that Gore won that election in spite of it.

As to election systems, I'm in favor of systems that fail well--every system will have failures, after all. The key is to have on with backups. Of all the time I've been a voter, the system I felt the most confidence with was the optical scan voting machines, because there was a piece of paper with my vote on it that could be counted by hand both to check the machine or in case of a machine failure. That seems to me to be the best combination of technologies.

As to the first point, while the military votes were counted, there was an objection - and the mere fact that there was an initial objection that was overridden only by the threat of public opinion is a distasteful sign that abuse would have otherwise taken place.

And as to the second point, there's no guarantee that what the software prints out is what you cast as a vote. It can print something to give you the warm fuzzy, and vote a completely different way.

As to the first point, while the military votes were counted, there was an objection - and the mere fact that there was an initial objection that was overridden only by the threat of public opinion is a distasteful sign that abuse would have otherwise taken place.
Gore was well within his rights to insist that votes that weren't turned in until after election day not be counted--the potential for vote fraud was extraordinarily high. I hold it against him that he didn't challenge the validity of those votes, frankly.

And as to the second point, there's no guarantee that what the software prints out is what you cast as a vote. It can print something to give you the warm fuzzy, and vote a completely different way.

I'm not talking about a printed paper trail, though I think that would be better than nothing. I'm talking about optical scan, where a voter places marks on a scantron-like sheet which is fed into a counter, and then the sheet runs into a locked box to be held in case there's a need to audit the machine or do a hand count if the machine fails. The machine itself acts only as a counter, not a recorder of votes.

Gore was well within his rights to insist that votes that weren't turned in until after election day not be counted--the potential for vote fraud was extraordinarily high. I hold it against him that he didn't challenge the validity of those votes, frankly.


Sure. But, considering that the military voter consistently votes 70 percent or more Republican, one can understand the real reason for wanting to negate those votes - and it isn't fear of fraud. Fraud would merely raise that to 100 percent - considering the total number of military voters in Florida, hardly a significant difference.

Sure. But, considering that the military voter consistently votes 70 percent or more Republican, one can understand the real reason for wanting to negate those votes - and it isn't fear of fraud. Fraud would merely raise that to 100 percent - considering the total number of military voters in Florida, hardly a significant difference.

Come on--tight election, going to a recount, and all of a sudden all these military votes from overseas come in days late, miraculously coinciding with a call from the Repubican party to "count all the votes," unless, of course, they were in Dade county, a Democratic stronghold. That stinks of fraud and an attempt to fuck with the process.

Florida 2000, however, is a perfect example of why national requirements would simplify things. One reason that Scalia gave in Bush v Gore for stepping in and removing the Florida Supreme Court's jurisdiction (in one of the worst decisions ever) was that there was no single standard for recounting votes statewide. One might extend his argument nationwide and say that without a uniform system, there can be no equal protection, which would make Scalia somewhat communist--but I digress.

Oddly enough, it's the equal protection argument that Scalia gave in Bush v Gore that some are using to challenge the election in FL-13, which is what got this thread started in the first place.

Gore was well within his rights to insist that votes that weren't turned in until after election day not be counted--the potential for vote fraud was extraordinarily high. I hold it against him that he didn't challenge the validity of those votes, frankly.

Nice to see that you do not want our military troops votes to count since those were the votes that came in a tad late.

Nice to see that you do not want our military troops votes to count since those were the votes that came in a tad late.

I want votes cast before election day to count. Period. Full stop. Any votes cast after that period should not count, I don't care who you are and what you're doing.

If the people in the military didn't get access to their ballots before election day, someone's ass ought to be kicked for it, but the same ought to go for anyone who was denied an absentee ballot, whether through maliciousness or incompetence. But I don't give a shit who you are--you don't vote after election day.

I want votes cast before election day to count. Period. Full stop. Any votes cast after that period should not count, I don't care who you are and what you're doing.

If the people in the military didn't get access to their ballots before election day, someone's ass ought to be kicked for it, but the same ought to go for anyone who was denied an absentee ballot, whether through maliciousness or incompetence. But I don't give a shit who you are--you don't vote after election day.

Ever stop to consider that it may not be the mililtary personel's fault that they did not get their ballots in on time? I see you never had experience with the way the military conducts postal duties. It is not pretty and it is far slower than it should be. Do not penalize our troops for something that is not their fault. Their votes should be counted along with everyone else's and if you do not believe that then you sir, need to clam up now and stop saying that all votes should be counted.

Ever stop to consider that it may not be the mililtary personel's fault that they did not get their ballots in on time? I see you never had experience with the way the military conducts postal duties. It is not pretty and it is far slower than it should be. Do not penalize our troops for something that is not their fault. Their votes should be counted along with everyone else's and if you do not believe that then you sir, need to clam up now and stop saying that all votes should be counted.
Did you even read the words in the second paragraph of the post you quoted? Apparently not.

Did you even read the words in the second paragraph of the post you quoted? Apparently not.

Yes I saw it but it was irrelevent to the fact that you did not want their votes counted because they came in a couple of days late.

Yes I saw it but it was irrelevent to the fact that you did not want their votes counted because they came in a couple of days late.
No, I didn't want them counted because they were cast a couple of days late. There's a significant difference there.

No, I didn't want them counted because they were cast a couple of days late. There's a significant difference there.

No, they were postmarked a couple of days late. There's a significant difference.

No, they were postmarked a couple of days late. There's a significant difference.

The postmark is the only way to be able to put a date on the ballot. The law requires the postmark be no later than election day--if I don't go vote on election day and show up two days later at the polling place, should I be allowed to vote? Why should absentee ballots be any different, no matter who's doing the balloting?

The postmark is the only way to be able to put a date on the ballot. The law requires the postmark be no later than election day--if I don't go vote on election day and show up two days later at the polling place, should I be allowed to vote? Why should absentee ballots be any different, no matter who's doing the balloting?

Especially since the military always votes at least 70% Republican.

Would you feel any different if you could always count on them to vote 70% Democrat?

Especially since the military always votes at least 70% Republican.

Would you feel any different if you could always count on them to vote 70% Democrat?
No. Like I said from the start, I'm an idealist on this. I want everyone to have the ability to vote. I want to in, sure, but I want to win because I have the best message, not because I've disenfranchised people. Like I said above, if incompetence or maliciousness kept absentee ballots from getting to military personnel--or anyone--on time for them to vote, they ought to be canned, if not tossed in jail for interfering with an election. But even if I were assured that not a single member of the military would vote for my preferred candidate, I'd still want them to have the opportunity to vote. It's their expression of their citizenship, and I would not deny that to anyone.

Especially since the military always votes at least 70% Republican.

Would you feel any different if you could always count on them to vote 70% Democrat?

Knowing The Nazz, my answer is "yes".

Knowing The Nazz, my answer is "yes".

The Nazz just posted, "No" right above you. So I take it as a "No".

The Nazz just posted, "No" right above you. So I take it as a "No".

Thanks. I freely admit, I'm as partisan as they come, but on this, I'm a true believer in the process. This sort of legislation, I believe, is good for the nation as a whole, in part because I believe part of the reason for low turnout (though that's gotten better in the last two elections) is that people are not convinced their votes will be counted fairly and openly.

The postmark is the only way to be able to put a date on the ballot. The law requires the postmark be no later than election day--if I don't go vote on election day and show up two days later at the polling place, should I be allowed to vote? Why should absentee ballots be any different, no matter who's doing the balloting?

Because it's a totally different situation. Showing up two days late to a polling place /= having your ballot postmarked a week after you get it to the post office.

There needs to be a system to have it dated. By notary public for example.

No, I didn't want them counted because they were cast a couple of days late. There's a significant difference there.

Prove that they were cast a couple of days late! You have no idea when those absentee ballots were filled in. Post marked late =/= casting ballot late.

Prove that they were cast a couple of days late! You have no idea when those absentee ballots were filled in. Post marked late =/= casting ballot late.
The law requires them to be postmarked by a particular date because the postmark acts as a timestamp of sorts. Start thinking for once.

Because it's a totally different situation. Showing up two days late to a polling place /= having your ballot postmarked a week after you get it to the post office.

There needs to be a system to have it dated. By notary public for example.

This doesn't apply to the military because, frankly, I don't know how they handle their mail, but if you bring a piece of mail to the post office during operating hours, it's postmarked the same day. It acts as a timestamp. The post office does not hold onto mail for days before postmarking it.

This doesn't apply to the military because, frankly, I don't know how they handle their mail, but if you bring a piece of mail to the post office during operating hours, it's postmarked the same day. It acts as a timestamp. The post office does not hold onto mail for days before postmarking it.

The military does not have ordinary post office services. At the unit level, someone gets the duty of being the postal clerk.

It's royally fucked wherever you're assigned. You're lucky if you get anything on time - half the time, they never postmark anything.

The law requires them to be postmarked by a particular date because the postmark acts as a timestamp of sorts. Start thinking for once.

And sometimes, depending on the area, they are not post marked till they get to a distribution center. So there is the possibility that they got it out on time but arrived late at the distribution center where they are post marked and sent on their way to the proper election offices.

Again, why punish the military voters for something that is not their fault. It is apparent, you do not know how shitty the mail system is for military members overseas.

And sometimes, depending on the area, they are not post marked till they get to a distribution center. So there is the possibility that they got it out on time but arrived late at the distribution center where they are post marked and sent on their way to the proper election offices.

Again, why punish the military voters for something that is not their fault. It is apparent, you do not know how shitty the mail system is for military members overseas.

The system is fucked. Fine. But you've been making it sound like I'm out to disenfranchise soldiers, and I'm not. I'm in favor of making the system work better for everyone.

The system is fucked. Fine. But you've been making it sound like I'm out to disenfranchise soldiers, and I'm not. I'm in favor of making the system work better for everyone.

But by saying that their votes should not count because they arrived in the United States and post marked late when it was mailed out in advance of the election is trying to disenfranchise their votes.

But by saying that their votes should not count because they arrived in the United States and post marked late when it was mailed out in advance of the election is trying to disenfranchise their votes.

Because there's got to be a hard deadline at some point. Or do we just hold up the end of an election period forever in case there's a vote lost in the mail somewhere? And to be specific to this case--if ever there were a group with the incentive to get votes in on time from a supposed stronghold like the military, it would be the Republicans. So why the ineptitude? It's irresponsible not to consider the potential for fraud.

I really don't like Feinstein but I definitely support this legislation. High time we had something of this nature done.

well it's the law of unintended consequences

in the first bush win al gore thought he was screwed by bush and we had the debates on hanging chads, etc - the electronic voting issue was passed at the democrat's insistance - no papers please for them - shining paperless perfection only

well now we're complaining about no paper trail/hackers/etc - they got what they wanted - too bad

that said - think it is a good idea to keep them honest

well it's the law of unintended consequences

in the first bush win al gore thought he was screwed by bush and we had the debates on hanging chads, etc - the electronic voting issue was passed at the democrat's insistance - no papers please for them - shining paperless perfection only

well now we're complaining about no paper trail/hackers/etc - they got what they wanted - too bad

that said - think it is a good idea to keep them honest

Prove that or retract it. HAVA was a bipartisan bill, but what it primarily did was provide funding to the states to buy their own voting machines--the various states were the ones who decided on paper trails or not. Georgia, one of the reddest states, was one of the first to adopt the paperless machines, as a matter of fact.

Prove that or retract it. HAVA was a bipartisan bill, but what it primarily did was provide funding to the states to buy their own voting machines--the various states were the ones who decided on paper trails or not. Georgia, one of the reddest states, was one of the first to adopt the paperless machines, as a matter of fact.
However, our Secretary of State is Cathy Cox. She recently lost the Democratic primary for Governor. I think that makes her a ... Democrat.

Still, it took a Republican legislature to approve the expenditure for the machines.

I consider the lack of positive identification a far greater threat to the integrity of our voting than a paperless voting machine.

However, our Secretary of State is Cathy Cox. She recently lost the Democratic primary for Governor. I think that makes her a ... Democrat.

Still, it took a Republican legislature to approve the expenditure for the machines.

I consider the lack of positive identification a far greater threat to the integrity of our voting than a paperless voting machine.

Was she the SecState in 2000? Just curious. Because the machines were in place by 2002.

As to the id provision, if the state's willing to insure that every citizen of the state has easy and free access to a photo id, then go for it. That's not what Georgia had, though, and that's why it was overturned by the courts.

A step in the right direction.

I hope the next step (requiring the code behind electric voting machines to be open source) comes soon.

I just don't like it when my vote disappears into a machine I know nothing about.

Was she the SecState in 2000? Just curious. Because the machines were in place by 2002.

As to the id provision, if the state's willing to insure that every citizen of the state has easy and free access to a photo id, then go for it. That's not what Georgia had, though, and that's why it was overturned by the courts.

I think she's been SoS for a long time. Since 1998, anyway. Most of our top-level officials have been the same for quite a while. And I think the majority are Democrats, or were until this recent election.

What was overturned was the wording of the Constitutional Amendment to require positive ID. At least that was the recent flap.

Campaign Activities by Election Officials: Prohibits a chief state election official from serving on any political campaign committee of a candidate for Federal office, making any public comments in support of a candidate in an official capacity, or soliciting political contributions on behalf of any candidate for Federal office.They shall call it the Law of Harris, Blackwell, and sometimes Hartmann.

I can answer one of those questions definitively, Eve Online, the one about how many military ballots were tossed because of complaints by the Gore camp. The answer is zero, even though they were within their rights to challenge ballots that were mailed after election day. They decided the negative press would outweigh any potential electoral gain, not that it mattered--the press had it in for Gore from the start. What's amazing is that Gore won that election in spite of it.

As to election systems, I'm in favor of systems that fail well--every system will have failures, after all. The key is to have on with backups. Of all the time I've been a voter, the system I felt the most confidence with was the optical scan voting machines, because there was a piece of paper with my vote on it that could be counted by hand both to check the machine or in case of a machine failure. That seems to me to be the best combination of technologies.
Optical scan rules. Those machines are the best. The voters know their ballots are complete and correct because they fill them out with their own hands and can take as much time as they like to review them before having them counted. If ballots are incomplete, it can easily be proved that it is the voter's doing, not the machine's. The original paper ballots are securely stored immediately, inside each machine, so there is little chance for tampering with the paper record. And you can check immediately that the ballot was scanned properly by the read-out tape, and if there is a problem, poll volunteers can fix it immediately, before the voter leaves.