backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 125 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Nov 6 at 12:19 AM
E-Voting could cause more problems than Florida some say

With all the fuss and press that we had a few elections ago over pregnant chads and miscounted votes, it's easy to see why there are Election Day jitters and concerns among voters. To help prevent such a controversy from happening again, Congress hoped to move the country from paper ballots to electronic voting.

Eight years ago, according to CNET News, the government was looking to spend up to $3.9 billion to replace touch card voting machines with easier to use technology. Congress added requirements that the new voting machines had to be accessible to blind and disabled voters leading to the mass adoption of touch screen voting machines.

The problem is that Congress neglected to stipulate the type of security that the voting machines had to use to prevent tampering with or hacking of the automated voting machines. Such abuse could potentially alter the outcome of elections and the leader of the nation.

Many states have decertified their electronic voting machines amid security concerns that the machines are susceptible to hacking. Some states are resorting back to paper ballots until the manufacturers of E-Voting machines can prove that the machines are secure and address the number of potential vulnerabilities of the machines.

A report commissioned by the Ohio secretary of state and written by Penn State and the University of Pennsylvania listed numerous potential vulnerabilities for machines built by Election Systems & Software, Hart InterCivic, and Premier Election Systems.

The report stated, "All of the studied systems possess critical security failures that render their technical controls insufficient to guarantee a trustworthy election." CNET News reports that the conclusion was reached by the researchers after finding multiple ways a hacker could insert viruses, erase logs, produce incorrect vote totals, or block some or all totals and keep voters from voting.

The makers of the voting machines claim that many of the possible vulnerabilities are overly theoretical or have been fixed with hardware and software updates. Despite the worries of voters and researchers, the makers of voting machines are quick to point out that no breach of an electronic voting machine has ever been recorded.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I am less concerned about...
By MrBlastman on 11/3/2008 11:52:23 AM , Rating: 2
The security of E-Voting machines (which obviously is easy to compromise and worrisome indeed), but instead more concerned about the origin of some 600+ Million Dollars of a particular candidates non-public funding.

I think this is where we should be focusing our efforts.

As far as E-Voting is concerned, we should go back to paper for now as the electronic scheme is too easily manipulated. If people can't poke a hole in a piece of paper, or understand the concept of how to do so (or if handicapped, get someone else to help them), they shouldn't vote.




RE: I am less concerned about...
By FITCamaro on 11/3/2008 12:24:51 PM , Rating: 1
I'm more concerned with the potential for millions of fraudulent votes being counted in the election due to the actions of ACORN and places like Ohio not having proper verification of identity before people are allowed to vote.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By MrBlastman on 11/3/2008 12:33:40 PM , Rating: 1
Oh ACORN is a problem. Funny thing - not a single person I saw in public whom was soliciting voter registration had a McCain button on their hat. 100% of them had an Obama button.

Talk about bias.

This election makes me want to get sick.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By sweetsauce on 11/3/2008 1:13:28 PM , Rating: 1
Do you realize how foolish that comment makes you seem? Acorn will never solicit votes for McCain because they don't want McCain to win. Its not a hard concept to understand. If you're an Obama supporter, you don't volunteer for the McCain campaign.

On the biased point, you are absolutely right. Whenever an organization picks one candidate over another, it is totally biased. We should have laws against that...

Many democrats were sick in 2004, and specially in 2000. You'll get over it.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By MrBlastman on 11/3/2008 1:16:23 PM , Rating: 1
I don't see the foolishness in my comment at all. Perhaps the bigger fool would be the ignorant voter that would not notice this at all?


RE: I am less concerned about...
By Spyvie on 11/3/2008 5:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not so sure any of us will get over this one. The country is divided like never before, and the people soon to be in power are closer to Marxists than our system should be comfortable with.

The Bush backlash has us throwing the baby out with the bathwater... and I'm not sure the U.S. Constitution will survive in anything like it's current form.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By Mojo the Monkey on 11/3/2008 5:52:17 PM , Rating: 3
Your comments that are based completely on fear and the regurgitation of right-wing pundit verbal diarrhea.

Have you any idea what the current administration has done, tried to do, and tried to circumvent; with respect to the Constitution? You want to use supposedly-spooky language like Marxism? Where is your criticism for the Alaskan gov. who "redistributes corporate wealth" to every citizen? I mean come on.

The comments by the common idiot sound like a 4th grade insult fight on the playground. Which candidate is the biggest doodie-head now?

Lets move away from the "buzz words" (if you are, in fact, capable of doing so) and have a serious discussion.

....I'm freaking voting third party write-in.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By Ringold on 11/3/2008 7:58:04 PM , Rating: 3
There's a bit of a difference between taking corporate earnings or private earnings created within the economy and taxing and distributing earnings on a commodity extracted from the ground, which theoretically belongs to the government and therefore to the people. In a sense, taxing oil and nat gas extraction and providing a dividend to the people is simply paying the people for a resource that belonged to them. In contrast, one person has no such claim on the paycheck of another other person -- not without the police power of the state to take it.

Come on. You could've tried to imply Palin was equally Marxist as Obama than that. :P After all, which candidate supports a low flat rate tax? None of them. So they're all socialist, just different shades of gray.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By Cypherdude1 on 11/4/2008 5:12:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
... but instead more concerned about the origin of some 600+ Million Dollars of a particular candidates non-public funding.

Democratic funding derives from hundreds of thousands of eligible donors. While there are thousands who give the legal limit of $2,300, most give less than $100 each. This allows the Democrats to tap their smaller donors many (many) times. They do this through letters, emails, etc... While $600M may seem huge, if everyone only gave $100, you would only need 6M donors. With the Internet (and credit cards), this is now easily possible. If there was any illegal contributing, the "Federal Election Commission" would step in: http://www.fec.gov/

BTW, it is the Republican Party which still uses the old method of using large donors. This is why McCain was only able to raise $300M.

quote:
The security of E-Voting machines (which obviously is easy to compromise and worrisome indeed)... As far as E-Voting is concerned, we should go back to paper for now as the electronic scheme is too easily manipulated.

In my S. Calif. county, we have electronic voting machines which have a built-in printer on the left side. The paper is viewable through a clear plastic window. When you have finished making your selections and just before you finalize your ballot, the little printer rolls up with your selections. The voter is able to see all his selections before he finalizes and leaves. When the voter is finished, the paper rolls further up, no one can see his selections, and the machine is ready for the next voter. If there is a recount, these rolls of paper are used for verification. This is the way all voting machines should be. I don't know why other states can't be as efficient as California. Perhaps it's because California is where the Internet and the first mass-produced PC (Apple II) were born.

B ^D


RE: I am less concerned about...
By bkslopper on 11/4/2008 6:14:16 AM , Rating: 3
It's also where smug was born.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2008 7:52:46 AM , Rating: 1
Obama hasn't released information on his donors. How would the FEC know if there was illegal contributions?

And attributing the internet to California is pretty stupid. Perhaps you forget that the internet was developed under a DARPA contract for use by the military. Something that wouldn't happen under an Obama presidency since he plans to slash military spending.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By MrBlastman on 11/4/2008 9:24:07 AM , Rating: 3
Seeing how California has been facing bankruptcy and needed a 7 Billion Dollar bailout, I hardly see how it is efficient. ;)

Illegal Contributing? That is the thing, we do not know if there has been illegal contributing just yet because Obama chose to forego public financing, thereby bypassing the scruitiny and extra checks and balances that are required of it. These checks and balances would go a long way towards preventing illegal contributions. Because his campaign is avoiding this - and given the huge bulk of donations (far more than has ever been seen before), I feel that urgent investigations into the origins of said contributions is necessary. Unfortunately, because the checks and balances were not in place - I fear we will never know.

One tidbit of information for you - the last president to not take the public financing route was... Richard Nixon. We all know how that ended up.


By Cypherdude1 on 11/4/2008 2:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.

Notice the date, 1975. The FEC was created as a result of Nixon's shenanigans. There seems to be a misunderstanding as to private and public financing. Either way, the FEC still keeps track of donors and enforces campaign financing rules regarding limits. If you go to http://www.fec.gov , you'll see on the left side "Campaign Finance Reports and Data." I believe you can search all Obama and/or McCain donors for amounts, etc... You can even download entire databases using FTP. I haven't tried any of this, but I think I will later when the dust has settled.

Regarding California's $7 Billion problem, for Sacramento, that's just petty cash. I'm sure they'll figure it out.

B ^D


RE: I am less concerned about...
By BansheeX on 11/5/2008 12:58:16 AM , Rating: 2
Not just socialists, flaming socialists who bail out failure that once existed to deter risk, guarantee deposits to destroy the fear that otherwise would have deterred deposits with highly leveraged investment banks offering abnormally high yields over traditional banks, finance industry with forcibly appropriated money, monopolize money, inflate at 11% annually per reconstructed M3 calculations, guarantee mortgage debt, centrally price fix interest rates, declare lending standards discriminatory with the Community Reinvestment Act, treat the constitution like toilet paper while blaming the free market for sudden changes in investment behavior these socialist policies created in the past, now, and in the future. While a clueless populous fails to educate itself and flails wildly at another socialist to take them back to the "way it felt" under the tech stock/real estate bubble. *tap* *tap* here comes the next stimulus needle to delay the withdrawal for another day, another month, another year, oh please oh please oh please, it can go on forever, these jobs are real, this wealth is real, oh please oh please! Hope and inflation, hope and inflation, that's the cure, that's the ticket, more, now, more.... AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!


RE: I am less concerned about...
By Ringold on 11/3/2008 7:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whenever an organization picks one candidate over another, it is totally biased. We should have laws against that... Many democrats were sick in 2004, and specially in 2000. You'll get over it.


Is that sarcasm about having laws against it? ACORN does receive a substantial amount of federal funding. IMHO, agencies taking government coin should be barred from engaging in the political process at all, because their bias is obvious: help any candidate that will benefit their agency, not serve any common good.

But yeah. Federal dollars being used to campaign for and attempt to rig an election for Obama. We'll get over it. It's all for the common good, yes?


RE: I am less concerned about...
By sweetsauce on 11/3/2008 1:05:04 PM , Rating: 1
You mean you're more concerned that Obama is going to win no matter what republicans do or say? Perhaps now conservatives will be heading to... what country could a conservative go to and escape the rise of the "liberals"?


RE: I am less concerned about...
By MrBlastman on 11/3/2008 1:11:16 PM , Rating: 1
Cheer all you want about his pending possible victory - the man has nothing good to provide for our Capitalistic economy.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By PWNettle on 11/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: I am less concerned about...
By FITCamaro on 11/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: I am less concerned about...
By Mojo the Monkey on 11/3/2008 5:56:13 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, clearly. Man, all that interference REALLY drove up that housing bubble. Maybe if lenders and banks had even MORE freedom to invent dubious loan and investment devices to make hay in the extreme-short-term, we'd never be in this situation. [/s]


RE: I am less concerned about...
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2008 7:56:11 AM , Rating: 2
Yes it did drive up the housing bubble. People bought homes that couldn't afford them. Hence the housing bubble. Lenders and banks "invented" the loans because in the end, it wasn't them giving the loans. Fannie and Freddie bought any high risk loans thrown at them. So for the banks there was no risk in giving the loan.

The interference is what created that situation. If the government had stayed out of the housing market and not mandated that banks give the loans or else, then the banks wouldn't have ever given them out. But when you're giving a loan with no risk to yourself, what reason do you have not to?


RE: I am less concerned about...
By MrBlastman on 11/4/2008 9:28:59 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, a few years ago Bush and McCain tried to pass legislation that would have dramatically increased legislation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This oversight would have gone to great lengths to curb the out of control lending market.

Guess who rallied against this bill?

Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Majority.

I bet you didn't think about that?


RE: I am less concerned about...
By pauldovi on 11/3/2008 5:31:29 PM , Rating: 1
Pure capitalism really?

What is the root word of capitalism? CAPITAL. What current problem are we having? CREDIT. Capitalism doesn't exist without capital. The federal reserve constantly acts to undermine this concept, encouraging banks to loan money they wouldn't loan in a capitalistic economy.

We do not live in anything close to a capitalistic society. We have a national bank and strictly regulated industries. The arguement for the failed regulation? We need more!


RE: I am less concerned about...
By Ringold on 11/3/2008 8:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...which is a good thing since pure capitalism is driving this country into the ground.


And what part of the housing and mortgage market, for example, looks like pure capitalism to you? The large tax-favored treatment of home ownership vs. renting, perhaps? Or how about how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pseudo-government agencies, dominate the mortgage market?

Or is that just what your liberal friends told you and you thought it sounded good?


RE: I am less concerned about...
By Dreifort on 11/3/2008 1:28:26 PM , Rating: 4
VERY typical of a liberal. I believe in a fair election process. That's what our country is about.

I like having a mixed congressional government. Some liberals, some conservatives and a small mix of others represented. It gives almost everyone a voice to be heard. A VOICE TO BE HEARD...a voice to be heard... get that?

That brings me back from my digression...

Every time I try to TALK politics with those voting for Obama I mention that I am voting for McCain, just because he has more policies and values I prefer over Obama - each candidate has their own values I admire. McCain has the most for me. But liberals don't understand that. They are close minded. All they here is "I am voting for McCain..." and then shut me out. They refuse to allow me to talk. They start cutting me off telling me I’m misled to vote for anyone but Obama - that I am in the wrong.

What happened to the ability to HAVE A VOICE in our government?? I'm not even allowed to voice my opinion in the election.

The Obamanation wants TOTAL voice and would love nothing better than to have 100% liberal president, congress, state government, etc. This is the ONE thing our forefathers wanted most to prevent. (That and a dictatorship.)

Everyone I talk to that is voting for Obama is 100% behind him. They have zero (0) things they don't like about him. I personally have about a 3rd of the policies I don't agree with on McCain...but I am still voting for him.

It's impossible to have a candidate that is 100% on the issues for voters. Impossible.

There's a phrase for such a thing that is perceived to exist: Cult of Personality (not referring to the song, but the origin of the phrase). A Cult of Personality is the path way to totalitarianism. You thought socialism was a threat to our country??

Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: "A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul"

I don't mind that Obama is a candidate. I do mind how anything against Obama (either question him or run against him) is labeled as WRONG.

What happened to "may the best man win"? In Obama's camp he is the only man worth winning.

again...cult.....


By TheHarvester on 11/3/2008 2:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
I've found people from both sides of this election get pretty polarized when you say you're voting for one candidate or the other, or if you say that you're simply not voting.

Hence the alternative: Bob Barr! Mostly you get confused stares from regular people and the occasional high-five from other free market supporters. The libertarian view can get a little out of hand when taken to extremes, but for those who support the free market, it's at least one alternative to the other choices on the table.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By MrBlastman on 11/3/2008 2:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
Good post.

My view on the purpose of government:

It should provide a Military to defend our nation
It should protect its citizens (police, fire dept) and keep them safe
It should create and enforce laws

That is it. Nothing else, nothing more. A minimalistic view indeed, but in essence, all we really need from a functioning government. Society will take care of the rest.

Obama - wants to do far more than the basic three tenets that I briefly mentioned above. He doesn't fit the bill and didn't get my vote.

Am I happy with the choice we have this time around - not at all. I am sure, however, that I do not want him leading us. Like you mentioned, I reviewed all of what the candidates said and found I did not agree with 100% of anything any of them said.

I find that I prefer to have a candidate that is well rounded, moderate and does not subscribe to partisan views. Sadly, we do not have a true emulation of this from either party. If we had perhaps a McCain-Lieberman or Huckabee-Lieberman choice to vote against versus Obama-Biden, I would have likely been a very happy voter.

Boo, hiss or disdain all people might... those that revel in supporting a single "party," sadly it is those same people that blindly flock to their groups calling that are the same people whom are holding up what is best for our Nation. A government of pure non-partisan influence would indeed serve our best interests far more than a Right or Left swaying Bureaucracy.

I wish more voters would think rather than listen.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By mindless1 on 11/4/2008 9:10:37 AM , Rating: 2
"I wish more voters would think rather than listen."

I was thinking about something else when I read your post, could you repeat it plz?


RE: I am less concerned about...
By MrBlastman on 11/4/2008 9:30:33 AM , Rating: 2
Seeing how you are mindless, and not listening, I think you are in trouble... :P


RE: I am less concerned about...
By mindless1 on 11/4/2008 9:48:24 PM , Rating: 2
Or maybe those with head up arse can't see irony.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By MrBlastman on 11/5/2008 9:44:25 AM , Rating: 2
I don't believe you were thinking about irony when you made your post. ;)


RE: I am less concerned about...
By mindless1 on 11/5/2008 12:58:40 PM , Rating: 2
Then you'd be wrong, the irony is obvious when someone dribbles out what they think we need to listen to then closes by claiming people don't listen.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By MrBlastman on 11/5/2008 5:35:34 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you didn't see the irony in your own post with your name plus your post, this is what I refer to.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By mindless1 on 11/6/2008 12:19:03 AM , Rating: 2
My name refers to replying to someone else's mindless actions. Congrats, you qualified.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By sweetsauce on 11/3/2008 2:51:35 PM , Rating: 5
Funny how we are on the verge of democrat dominance in office and now conservatives want balance. VERY typical of conservatives. Sucks to feel you are losing your voice doesn't it? Welcome to life for a liberal in the first 6 years of Bush's terms.

I can take your entire post, substitute Bush in every time you list Obama, and we have the last 2 elections. Its always easy to see things from your own perspective, but we often overlook other people's perspective.

Your entire post was about people not wanting to listen to your point of view, but there's something you are forgetting. Being in America gives me the option of saying to you, "no thanks i don't care for your point of view." Deal with it.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By Ringold on 11/3/2008 8:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
So that liberals went through it means the whole country should experience single-party control again? Would you really prefer to see the country be harmed further by single-party politics just to serve a personal need for vengeance? That's what it sounds like; "You did it to us, now we do it to you. Get over it." Boy oh boy, no surprise, a liberal failing to put nation first.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By sweetsauce on 11/3/2008 8:55:21 PM , Rating: 2
Heres some insight that might shock you. Ready for it? Perhaps, and i know this might be a stretch, i think a democratic controlled government will be good for the country. Ain't that some shit. Its not personal vendetta, its personal belief that the country has been in a continual downward spiral since the republicans took control 8 years ago all because Clinton got some head from a fat chick.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By MrBlastman on 11/4/2008 9:18:46 AM , Rating: 3
With the amount of crass and uncouthness displayed in your last post - I certainly would want a linguist such as yourself (or apparently a champion of your pedestalled party). America is headed towards a classy time.

Here are a couple of pointers for you to guide you in your esteemed political career:

1. The President sets the moral, social and highest standard of image for a citizen to look up to and emulate. He is someone for children to admire and strive to be, and for citizens to take in as a shining example of a great American.

A man that cheats on his spouse and then lies about it under oath does NOT make a good example.

2. A country that does not learn from its past mistakes is a country doomed to repeat them.

A partisan control of all portions of our government is NOT a good thing - be it Republican or Democrat.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By Regs on 11/4/2008 9:16:04 AM , Rating: 2
Well if that wasn't a contradiction in thought, I'm super man. Basically you're bitter about Bush, and who the hell isn't anymore, so you're going to vote Lib-Democratic.

Good idea. And now that I'm super-man, I might just decide to run for President because I can CHANGE this nation with my super abilities and my 2 years experience in the Senate.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By fxyefx on 11/3/2008 3:34:26 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
What happened to "may the best man win"? In Obama's camp he is the only man worth winning.


It's still here.

I think you might be applying a generalization to the whole group of Obama supporters based on a small group of them whom you've personally come in contact with.
Each of us is, after all, only personally in contact with a tiny portion of the whole population.

For instance, it would be fallacious of me to conclude that all McCain supporters are extremely closed-minded based on exclusive contact with, say, the crowd that showed up at a McCain rally who were shouting things like "He's a Muslim!," "Terrorist!" Such a crowd is not likely of the mindset “May the best man win”, but they certainly do not reflect the mindset of the entire group of McCain supporters.

People are quite accustomed to observing the behavior of others, applying generalizations, and creating accurate terms like "Cult of Personality." This is all OK, as it aids in our decision making process. AND YET they emotionally refuse to accept that they are themselves part of these social trends, as evidenced by the indignation they feel toward groups who do not share their beliefs, and the readiness with which they use their personal experiences to make conclusions about large populations.

Oops, I just became guilty of it as well. See?

Your desire for all people to have a voice clearly puts you in that cult of open-mindedness. You know, that one that all open-minded people think everyone else should join.
;-)


RE: I am less concerned about...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: I am less concerned about...
By sweetsauce on 11/3/2008 9:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
You are absolutely right, Obama supporters are definitely passionate. But i'm pretty sure you got the argument backwards there buddy. Republicans are the illogical ones that act like they are rooting for their local sports team. No matter how much bullshit the republican party commits, no matter what loser they trumpet out as their candidate, no matter how much damage they do to the country, you all still stick to the party line like stupid stubborn sheep and keep on voting republican. It's so illogical to me that it hurts my brain.

You've seen what has happened to this country, the progressive downturn it has gone through in the last 8 years while being in republican control, and you still try to argue that somehow its the democrat's fault. Let me understand your logic here, if the democrats had no one in congress, and it was all republican control in the last 8 years, we would all be rich and riding high on the economic surplus right?

Obama makes me feel good in the sense that i actually feel there might be hope for everyday people in this country. I think conservatives forget that you need the middle class and lower for this country to survive. You can't outsource ditch digging, sanitation work, trash collecting, and the tons of other disgusting and unhealthy jobs that regular people do on a daily basis just to get by. I'm sure if you could you would, everything you can do to get that extra buck. You've squeezed regular folks once too many times, and now they are fighting back. I expect a landslide victory tomorrow because regular folks are ready to push back.

When you go bed tonight, and you're lying there struggling to sleep because you are so worried about what is going to happen to this country, just remember this. I went through the same thing 8 years ago, and in my case every damn fear i had about this country going in the shitter came true. I don't think you'll have that same problem.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By ebakke on 11/3/2008 1:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
Probably the same country all the liberals were going to flock to once W was reelected.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By wordsworm on 11/4/2008 12:39:23 AM , Rating: 2
If you want to go to a conservative country, I believe both England and Canada are into them at the moment. Canada has three Liberal parties and one Conservative party. It's amazing to see how effective splitting a vote can work. However, you'll probably still have to wait a year or so before the bad Conservative policies end up putting the country into deficit mode. The Liberals did such a good job that it's taking longer than the Conservatives thought to masticate the economy.


By Donkeyshins on 11/4/2008 12:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
Ironically...Russia.


RE: I am less concerned about...
By sgw2n5 on 11/3/2008 1:45:19 PM , Rating: 5
ACORN employees are paid to register names. Many of there employees manufacture these names and turn them in for $$$.

All names that are turned, regardless of whether it is Mickey Mouse, must be turned in by law. The real names with real SS numbers and real addresses will be processed, and only the real people will vote.

Republicans are already looking for boogeymen for the impending loss? Christ on a stick, have some more faith in your candidate than that..


By Reclaimer77 on 11/3/2008 6:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
Mississippi now has more registered voters than they have actual citizens ! Uhhh hmmm, how did that happen ?


Why?
By room200 on 11/3/2008 2:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
I find it amazing that after all the tactics used by the republican party to win this election that anyone could seriously still consider voting for McCain. They have accused Obama of:

1. Being a socialist
2. Being a Marxist
3. Being Muslim (which is a racist tactic)
4. "Palling around with terrorists"
5. Cozying up to a supposed anti-semite
6. Being an elitist
7. By not "like us"
8. Being a baby murderer because he supports choice
9. Being responsible for voter fraud
10. Being anti-American
11. Not having done anything in the senate while at the same time being responsible for this horrid economy (how can he have done nothing but be responsible for everything?)




RE: Why?
By Spivonious on 11/3/2008 3:12:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
3. Being Muslim (which is a racist tactic)


Oh, is Islam a race now?


RE: Why?
By sweetsauce on 11/3/2008 3:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
No but being a Muslim = terrorist to rednecks. And since all muslims are from the middle east, and they all wear turbans, and i've seen a picture of Obama wearing a turban, then obviously by the connect the dot method of redneck thinking Obama = terrorist.


RE: Why?
By Runiteshark on 11/4/2008 12:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
You sure do know a lot about rednecks. Gosh golly gee mister.


RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 11/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By MrBlastman on 11/3/2008 4:03:45 PM , Rating: 2
For a young guy you are spot on. I wish you'd rub off on more young Americans - because right now I feel very little hope for them... all blindly voting for Obama :(


RE: Why?
By omnicronx on 11/3/2008 4:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
As oppose to blindly voting for bush? Someone whom you both agree is not a true republican? If you do not agree with his ideals, why did you vote for him?


RE: Why?
By omnicronx on 11/3/2008 4:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
...and not once, but twice


RE: Why?
By MrBlastman on 11/3/2008 4:34:16 PM , Rating: 3
I never voted FOR Bush, I voted against Gore and Kerry. :)

I also feel that McCain-Palin is far weaker and less ideal than a McCain-Lieberman or a Huckabee-Lieberman ticket would have been.


RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2008 7:59:51 AM , Rating: 2
McCain may not be a true conservative either, but next to Obama, he practically looks like one. And we're not voting for Bush this time around.

I'm voting for the guy I agree with more. Obama I don't agree with at all. McCain has two major strikes against him. Every single thing Obama says I'm against.


RE: Why?
By Spivonious on 11/4/2008 9:54:29 AM , Rating: 2
I predict that we'll see a lot of third party votes this election. Maybe even 10%. People are just tired of the endless Democrat/Republican segregation.

I'm voting for Barr, since PA always goes Democrat anyway. Might as well vote for who I like instead of voting "against" Obama.


RE: Why?
By omnicronx on 11/3/2008 4:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
FT.. it doesn't really matter what you think Bush was, he run as a republican, and was voted in as a republican, thus he will leave a bad mark on the republican party. No amounts informational Bush tidbits is going to change this.

I understand as a true republican, this may not sit well with you, but the fact remains people are not going to forget what Bush did, and as such the vote tomorrow will probably reflect that in one way or another.

I don't know why this should surprise you either, I can think of many situations in which a new candidate tries to separate him/herself from the former leader that represented the same party. It rarely happens, nor do I think it will happen this time.

p.s if Mccain did not agree with bush's policies, then why did he vote for him in congress almost every single time.


RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2008 8:01:04 AM , Rating: 2
Where do I even freakin mention Bush in my previous comment?


RE: Why?
By sweetsauce on 11/3/2008 5:56:48 PM , Rating: 3
When did being equated to Socialist become a bad thing? I'm pretty sure capitalism is failing us right now. No im not talking about wall street, im talking about everyday people. Last time i checked, you need a middle class to buy your shit or all companies will fail. I know in my work i rely on the middle class for business, and right now things are tight.

By your definition of "palled around" then McCain is a bigger threat to our national security. I've seen footage of him "pallin around" with the big scary kind of terrorists, the muslim ones.

On the anti-semite thing, i'd love for you to provide some proof, that would be a revelation to me. Sounds like you pulled it out of your ass.

Do you even know what elitist means? Look it up, i guarantee you McCain fits that mold perfect. Certainly more than Obama ever could. His whole campaign is based on how he "knows how to fix the economy" and how he "knows how to handle terrorism". Sounds pretty elitist to me.

By saying hes not like us are you talking about the fact that Obama is still with his first wife? I guess thats a bit un-american.

Being pro choice doesn't not mean you support murder. A baby is a leech until it is born, it can't survive on its own so how can you say its alive? Leeches don't deserve constitutional rights.

Your ACORN line is classic conservative spin doctoring. You do know ACORN followed FEDERAL LAW in turning in all those fake voter registrations right? And you do know that those fake ones would never get registered right? Unless you think Tony Romo is going to go vote in Ohio.

By my count, him not being part of the crap that has happened in congress over the last 8 years makes him the best Senator of the bunch. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

All these things combined make your views of the man pretty biased and, in my opinion, completely wrong. I hold out hope that more Americans feel the same way i do.


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: Why?
By sweetsauce on 11/3/2008 9:33:11 PM , Rating: 1
I see, so because "you" weren't hurt by the bush tax cuts, then all is well in the world. Sorry my bad. The middle class is in shambles right now whether you want to believe it or not.

Last year the market hit an all time high, gee i wonder how that happened... Oh yeah, it was the lack of oversight and short trading and computer models selling shit tons of bad loans off as great solid loans. I'm sure thats all the democrat's fault right? What happened with our economy in the last 8 years is what happens in every pyramid scheme. The people at the top get filthy rich, the few lucky ones in the middle make some money, and the poor idiots at the bottom get screwed. Only difference is the people who got stuck at the bottom of that pyramid wasn't just regular americans, it was companies and corporations that kept gambling on the economy and rolled that dice once too many times.

Obama being a socialist has no barring on what kind of president he will be except that it shows what kind of man he is. Someone who cares about regular americans and not corporations that are sponsoring his campaign. All those rich movie stars that give money to his campaign will be paying higher taxes in his plan, somehow it doesn't stop them from supporting the guy. Besides I'm pretty sure congress still passes laws in this country. I could be wrong since bush has bend those pesky checks and balances on his whim so many times.

You discounted my theory, my personal belief, that embryos growing in a woman somehow aren't leeches, yet you fail to explain to me how I'm wrong. If you remove them from the woman at any point before birth then it dies. Sounds like a leech to me whatever face or features it might have. Hell take away modern science and it dies if its born 2 months prematurely. I know that might not jive with your "faith" but its a fact. It dies, therefore its a leech.

My favorite part is when you labeled me as a liberal. Hate to break it to you, but im just a logical person. I'm very conservative in some things, but in this election i've decided that the correct way to vote is democratic. If Nader ever stood a chance i would consider the guy since i hate both the democratic and republican party.


RE: Why?
By Spivonious on 11/4/2008 9:58:32 AM , Rating: 2
GAh I hate it when people say things like this.

quote:
If Nader ever stood a chance i would consider the guy since i hate both the democratic and republican party.


He never stands a chance because his supporters never vote for him!!

So you're voting for Obama because he's predicted to win? Way to go, lemming.


RE: Why?
By MrBlastman on 11/4/2008 10:01:27 AM , Rating: 2
I always liked leading them off a cliff and watching the blood spray as they hit the ground. :)


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/2008 1:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see, so because "you" weren't hurt by the bush tax cuts, then all is well in the world. Sorry my bad. The middle class is in shambles right now whether you want to believe it or not.


Tax cuts never hurt anybody. Period. You Liberals keep selling the belief that people are helpless to improve their own lives, and that if we take money from someone who is better off, that will somehow make them better off. Please explain to me how Obama will make poor people rich by making rich people poor. Please, cause economically this doesn't work and NEVER has worked.

His plan is a joke, and so are the so called journalist who are supposed to be the watchguards of our society, who have NEVER asked OBama a single hard question about his plan. Where is this 250K number coming from ? Does that mean couples who file jointly or not ? Is it 250k of your gross or net ? Here it is, election day, and we still don't even know the specifics of this massive plan of his to fix everything.

Also the fact is, there is so " pie " from which to take pieces from. What you and Liberals like you never grasp, is that the amount of money in circulation is constantly GROWING in this country. New sources of revenue happen on a daily basis. And yet you insist on this rediculous modern day Robbin Hood idealism where you can take from the rich and give to the poor. Its absurd.

quote:
Obama being a socialist has no barring on what kind of president he will be except that it shows what kind of man he is.


Uhhh wow, thats a head scratcher. Nice logic.

quote:
You discounted my theory, my personal belief, that embryos growing in a woman somehow aren't leeches,


Unborn babies are self aware, feel pain, and have brainwaves and heartbeats. This has been proven scientifically time and time again. Its nice to have a personal belief, but that doesn't make it true. I personally believe that ham sandwiches were sent from Aliens to take over the planet, but that doesn't make it so does it ?

quote:
If you remove them from the woman at any point before birth then it dies.


By this logic there has never been a premature birth that has survived EVER. Are you going to dispute this too ?

quote:
My favorite part is when you labeled me as a liberal.


How aren't you ? So far you have stated socialism is good, and capitalism is bad. You have an extremly idiotic pro abortion belief system. And you are pro Obama. Now if this doesn't make someone a Liberal, than I don't know what does.


RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2008 2:12:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well said.

Ireland cut its corporate tax rate from the highest in the world to the lowest and its economy boomed. Low taxes bring in businesses and create jobs. Then the business is paying taxes. All those people are paying taxes. They're buying things with their money. What are these things? The flavors of a good economy.

Obama's tax plan will kill businesses and cost probably millions of jobs. And with the high likelihood of a liberal House and Senate, he'll get what he wants if elected.


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/3/2008 6:50:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Last time i checked, you need a middle class to buy your shit or all companies will fail. I know in my work i rely on the middle class for business, and right now things are tight.


Last time I checked, the middle class mostly work for the so called " rich " people. So how are they going to buy " shit " when they get laid off because Obama made the cost of doing business too high ?

It works both way. You show a clear lack of understanding of how things work.

And prove to me, please, how things are tight right now because of the Conservative Republicans. Please, I can't wait to hear this one.


RE: Why?
By Ringold on 11/3/2008 8:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When did being equated to Socialist become a bad thing?


Since it failed in Western Europe, leading Western Europe to spend, what, the last 10 years or so trying to claw their way back to more flexible and open markets? How about the 30 year run France had of unemployment never far from 10% and often times higher? Jimmy Carter? How much evidence do we need, or do we need to fail ourselves before we learn anything?

quote:
I'm pretty sure capitalism is failing us right now.


Regulation has failed us. Government market manipulation has failed us. Capitalism has been a huge success in Ireland, Eastern Europe, China, India, lifting several hundred million from poverty over the past couple decades.

quote:
By saying hes not like us are you talking about the fact that Obama is still with his first wife? I guess thats a bit un-american.


Given that at least half of marriages or so fail, yes, the American way is to experiment once or twice first. Iron-clad prenuptials is the American way. :P

quote:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin


You're defending a Democrat. Democrats are pro-big government/regulation. You've even, in that very post, implied capitalism has failed and therefore government must save us. Quoting a powerful anti-government quote to defend a big-government candidate .. I'll stop before I offer my estimate of your powers of comprehension.


RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2008 8:04:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the anti-semite thing, i'd love for you to provide some proof, that would be a revelation to me. Sounds like you pulled it out of your ass.


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/khalidi-re...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2097565/pos...

Enough information on that connection? Plenty more available. And Wright is another big anti-semite.


RE: Why?
By Donkeyshins on 11/4/2008 1:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
It was a faculty retirement dinner for Khalidi when he left the University of Chicago - big deal. That's like saying that since Bush had a state dinner with Putin he's culpable for the invasion of Georgia by Russia.

Oh, and Khalidi is not a terrorist or anti-Semite (since Palestinians are technically Semites, too). He's actually a fairly moderate and respected (even in Israel) scholar. If anything, he is anti-Zionist, which is a different thing entirely due to the fact that his homeland (Palestine) has been under occupation since 1948. And, just to be clear, he believes in the 2-state solution.

Oh, and for the record, if you are going to pin this label on Obama then you need to apply it to McCain as well, since the International Republican Institute gave the Center for Palestine Research and Studies (founded by Khalidi) a $500,000 grant while McCain was Chairman of the IRI in the 1990s.


RE: Why?
By bplewis24 on 11/3/2008 11:59:52 PM , Rating: 1
I thought you were ignorant in speaking about technology and gaming, but I didn't know the half of it.

Brandon


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/3/2008 6:34:03 PM , Rating: 2
And yet the best Obama can come up with is " but hes uhhhh hes just like George Bush "

Real convincing argument...


RE: Why?
By wordsworm on 11/4/2008 12:58:23 AM , Rating: 4
The whole world appreciates Obama. He represents hope. McCain represents war, more war, and forget the environment. Go Obama.


RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2008 8:09:13 AM , Rating: 1
Obama and McCain unfortunately agree on the environment you idiot.

And I could care less what the rest of the f*cking world thinks about our president.

Work for ACORN recently? Maybe the media?


RE: Why?
By wordsworm on 11/4/2008 8:43:12 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, well, when the president also happens to be the world's only superbully, supercop, and runs rampant in illegal wars to procure a stronger hold over oil, having a good president is important not just to your country, but to world peace.

Acorns are for chipmunks. As for the media - if I was involved in the media, do you really think I'd be wasting my 'talent' on a nonprofit response? Try logic for once, if you're capable.

As far as McCain and Obama agreeing on the environment, here's a snippet:
quote:

The long term requires a systematic shift from fossil fuels to reneweables. It is still unclear if all the options are even known. A massive and concerted effort to commercialize these technologies is necessary, through some coordinative mechanism such as the G8 plus 5. Estimates show that these goals are demanding, but attainable. Obama calls for $150 billion over the next 10 years. McCain is silent.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-m-haas/obama-a...


There's more to read on that webpage. Not that you will read any of it. You'd run the risk of learning something, not to mention having to admit to knowing less about the presidential candidates than a foreigner.


RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2008 9:08:44 AM , Rating: 2
Yes because wars are illegal when the SENATE approves them.

And we've just been stealing lots of oil out of Iraq right?

And I agree that having a good president is important our country and world peace. But world peace can be had in many ways. We could have never fought World War 2 and just kept giving countries to Hitler and had world peace. But would you want to live in that world? I'd prefer to remain a sovereign nation than sign all our rights over to the UN as Obama pretty much wants to do.

I know McCain will defend this country. Obama doesn't have the experience or the ideals to. Never before have we had a presidential candidate with such a shady past. Or one with so much about his past that we still know nothing about. I mean the man won't even turn over his birth certificate. I'm sure as hell not going to vote to elect a man who refuses to do that.


RE: Why?
By wordsworm on 11/4/2008 9:39:41 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'd prefer to remain a sovereign nation than sign all our rights over to the UN as Obama pretty much wants to do.


Bush had his cake and ate it too, might be one way to say it. On the one hand, refuse to abide by the UN. On the other, use it as a weapon when possible. Use it to make sure that Iraq doesn't have WMDs, have them verify the location of whatever defenses they might have before invading.

As far as WWII was concerned, the US wasn't particularly important in Europe. Maybe if they'd gotten in earlier it would've been a different story. The US was certainly the deciding factor against Japan. Canada, England, and the USSR, and Hitler shooting himself in the foot (most notably being the third superpower to think he could take on the Soviets/Russia and Old Man Winter), were the main reasons that the Nazis failed.

In any case, Obama might very well be the president that the world can look up to. Good luck on electing him.


RE: Why?
By MrBlastman on 11/4/2008 9:47:32 AM , Rating: 2
America... not important in Europe? Are you kidding?

I suppose if we had not invaded Normandy, if we had not given supplies to the British, if we had not conducted our massive bombing campaign on German infrastructure with our B-17's and B-24's, the Russians still would have beaten Germany with ease?

It was certainly a blunder on Hitler's part to not learn from Napoleon, but without American pressure being applied on Germany from behind, I definitely believe Germany would have had the resources and strength to regroup. If anything, we would still see a German occupied Europe to this day.

While the Russians had a formiddable air force, the German Luftwaffe inflicted considerable casualties to the Russians. The highest scoring aces in WW2 were German and the majority of those kills were of Russian pilots. If we had allowed Germany the slight amount of extra time they needed to get their superior technology 100% operations, I dare say Russia would have eventually had their hands full.

But, continue to dream on if you want. American involvement in the European theater was critical to the defeat of Germany.


RE: Why?
By wordsworm on 11/5/2008 3:54:05 AM , Rating: 2
You know, when it comes to Normandy, there were three nations whose military beached and breached. But Americans too often consider themselves the hero of Europe, and that somehow Europe is therefore supposed to be their lackey.

Canada had been giving supplies to England for two years more than the US, not to mention bringing to bear world class soldiers and equipment within a year of its start. Heck, up until the US decided to join the party on the side of the Allies, the US had been developing weapons alongside the Germans, helping the Germans. That's right, helping the Nazis.

As for the Russians, their tanks were far superior to the Germans. Perhaps not on one on one battles, but they were easier to manufacture and used basic geometry to change the slant of the front end of the tank. For all the power of the Tiger, it was simply too complex a tank to compete with Russian numbers. There's no way they'd have been able to resist Russia.

But Americans always like to take all the credit. Certainly the US was of help, but the Allies would've won anyways. There are so many reasons that Germany was losing, not the least of which was Colossus.

With that said, clearly the West was prepared to let Japan walk away with the East, and the US was the only reason that it was stopped in the near term. Had they had time to consolidate their gains, even after the west had finished their business and perhaps decided to try Japan, they would've been much harder to oust.

Look, the US helped, but there's no way they deserve the credit they think they do. Canada was more important, as was Russia, and Britain.

In any case, no point in arguing old arguments. Congrats to America for electing what seems to be the most interesting president in the last 100 years. May he live up to all his promise. May he bring greater freedom to your country, end this insane war in Iraq, bring home those poor American soldiers, and bring fiscal responsibility back to your country. Good luck.


RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2008 10:11:42 AM , Rating: 2
As Blastman said, are you f*cking kidding? If not for the US, Hitler would have simply held Britain on their island while they attacked Russia with all their forces. Instead they had to fight an all out war on two fronts.

Christ do you live in the US? Please leave if so. Because you clearly know nothing about our country and clearly don't support it. So please move somewhere else that believes this crap you're spewing.


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/2008 6:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yes 2 front wars are very effective. Too bad the Anti Iraq war crowd can't make themselves see that.


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/2008 1:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
Good leaders don't care what other people think. For all of Bush's faults, thats one thing I can respect about the man. He knew what he had to do, he knew it wouldn't be popular, but he did it. Doing the right thing, all too often, isn't popular.

McCain and Obama are far too concerned with how we're going to look the rest of the world or how " popular " we are for my tastes. So bringing that up doesn't hold any water really. If you think most Americans are actually concerned with how we " look " to countries they will never set foot on, then I think you are mistaken.


RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2008 2:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good leaders don't care what other people think. For all of Bush's faults, thats one thing I can respect about the man. He knew what he had to do, he knew it wouldn't be popular, but he did it. Doing the right thing, all too often, isn't popular.


Spot on there. Bush has done things I haven't agreed with. But for the most part he's stuck with his principles regardless of how it made him look.


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/2008 1:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
He won't turn over his full medical records either. Which given his family history and the fact that hes a chain smoker, gives me pause.

McCain, however, has disclosed his full medical history. Over one thousand pages.

The birth certificate issue is very shaddy. I mean, we're not even sure if he was born in this country and qualifies for presidency. What exactly is he trying to hide anyway ?


RE: Why?
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2008 5:26:44 PM , Rating: 2
And that's my thing. What will happen if he gets elected and it is then brought to light that he isn't a natural born citizen? I mean I'm sure him and Pelosi will be like "all that matters is that he is a 'world' citizen".


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/2008 5:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure nothing would come of it. Liberals have prooven time and time again to have a 2 sided belief system. There is one set of rules for them, and one set of rules that they place on everyone else to go by.

Just like Michael Moore who makes millions on speaking tours to colleges, telling our youth to not invest in our corrupt capitalist society. Meanwhile he owns millions worth of stock market shares.


RE: Why?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/2008 5:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
I'm an American. I don't need to look to a politician for hope.

Thats how we got into this mess in the first place, if you want to call it that. Stop looking for a President to solve all of your problems and have HOPE in yourself.

You aren't looking for Hope and Change. You are looking for a dictator, and you just might get one.


For secure voting...
By acer905 on 11/3/2008 11:49:33 AM , Rating: 1
I say build dedicated voting buildings with large underground storage tanks. Then, have little tubes coming out of the tanks and into the voting booths. Give each person marbles, and tell them to put their marbles into the tubes of the candidate they want. For ease of deciding the winner, have the tanks on sets of scales, and use the weight! I dare someone to hack that system!




RE: For secure voting...
By freshmint on 11/3/2008 11:53:26 AM , Rating: 2
Well, then you have to worry about people putting their own, heavier marbles in the tubes.


RE: For secure voting...
By acer905 on 11/3/2008 12:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
To prevent that you could have a pressure switch. if a marble is heavier than it should be, it would be rejected.


RE: For secure voting...
By MrBlastman on 11/3/2008 12:03:20 PM , Rating: 2
Kind of like Veruca Salt?...


RE: For secure voting...
By omnicronx on 11/3/2008 12:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
They can also have the people running the system press a button each time a new person goes to vote, so that only one registered vote can go through, regardless of what you try to shove down there.


RE: For secure voting...
By wordsworm on 11/4/2008 1:54:12 AM , Rating: 2
What if people lose their marbles?


RE: For secure voting...
By bplewis24 on 11/3/2008 11:56:53 AM , Rating: 4
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but tubes can get clogged. They're not something you can just dump large amounts of information on.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?vide...


RE: For secure voting...
By inighthawki on 11/3/2008 12:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
As much as it is, sadly, a decent idea in theory, these tubes aren't exactly the kinds of things that get clogged. We're not running thick sludge or anything through them, simply one marble at a time, and as long as the diameter of the tube is large enough, marbles would never get stuck.


I mailed my ballot...
By Zorlac on 11/3/2008 5:22:21 PM , Rating: 2
I mailed my ballot...with RON PAUL's name written in.

...so dont blame me for whats coming. ;)




RE: I mailed my ballot...
By sweetsauce on 11/3/2008 6:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
Funny thing is had Ron Paul been chosen as the rep candidate, then rush and the other conservative talking heads would probably have you vote for Obama. Ron Paul was a bigger threat to the neocons than any candidate ever.


RE: I mailed my ballot...
By Ringold on 11/3/2008 8:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
I somehow doubt that. Ron Paul was far too abrasive, he could've delivered the same message in a much less confrontational way than "You're all fiat-currency loving bastards!!! YAAARR!!!!"

But beyond that, the Republican checklist:
Hated government - Check
Capitalist - Check
Constitutionalist - Check (his Dr. No thing sounds extremely similar to Goldwater's famous speech on ending all government programs that "do violence to the constitution")
Free Trader - Check
NRA-Approval - Check
States Rights - Check

Then again, you did expressly say neocons, not Republicans. Neocon's are an amorphous group of people who are almost impossible to actually find in the real world outside of government, so impossible to completely disagree with you.. but if you don't think the party wouldn't of voted for him, you couldn't be more wrong.

He wasn't perfect, I think he had some screws loose, but he's definitely in the same vein as Reagan.


RE: I mailed my ballot...
By sweetsauce on 11/3/2008 9:40:45 PM , Rating: 2
People wouldn't vote for Ron Paul because they would never be told to vote for him. You forget the neocons control most of the right wing media. They started their campaign against him by making fun of him. Then when a few people started to hear about the guy and his views, and realized that this guy is making a lot of sense, they just flat out ignored him like he wasn't even there. No candidate can ever stand a chance if he gets no exposure. I only wonder what could have been if he had gotten the nomination.


RE: I mailed my ballot...
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2008 9:14:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yes because so much of the media is controlled by the right wing. Nearly all the media is so left biased its not even funny. Fox is the only media outlet that even appears balanced but I've noticed them slipping ever more to the right in some of their articles.

And Democrats would never want anyone like him to get elected because he wouldn't put up with their spend, spend, spend ideas.


RE: I mailed my ballot...
By majBUZZ on 11/4/2008 4:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
Fox is the only media outlet that even appears balanced.

lol you gotta be fing kidding me yeah its the only media outlet that appeals to the unbalanced is more like it.

Corporations like newscorp and fox have a virtual monopoly on media. News is not about the news any more its a product that is marketed and sold.Take newspapers for instance Stories have been altered to avoid upsetting advertisers and thats just one of the many reasons why newsprint is just about dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation


RE: I mailed my ballot...
By MrBlastman on 11/4/2008 4:18:24 PM , Rating: 2
Oh wow. Just wow. Are you so oblivious to the fact that every other network on earth besides Fox News has a Liberal agenda? Do you really not see this?

Fox News is very balanced compared to the rest of them, however, it too does have an agenda of its own at times.


RE: I mailed my ballot...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/4/2008 5:26:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You forget the neocons control most of the right wing media.


Aside from Rush Limbaugh and a few minor publications, you would be hard pressed to say there is a large " right wing media " machine out there.

I can't believe I'm reading people on here who don't get that the huge majority of all media and press are extremely Liberal. Even if Fox news is totally right wing, that leaves 5 other MAJOR news stations that are totally and completely in the tank for the Democratic party. Even the founder of the Weather Channel has come out and said the company is moving too far to the left for his tastes.


trustworthy?
By TSS on 11/3/2008 11:48:27 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The report stated, "All of the studied systems possess critical security failures that render their technical controls insufficient to guarantee a trustworthy election."


honestly after all the recounts the last time bush got elected, who belives in that?




RE: trustworthy?
By FITCamaro on 11/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: trustworthy?
By omnicronx on 11/3/2008 12:51:11 PM , Rating: 3
FT.. how can you forget Ohio... not only was it partially recounted, but there was even proof of tampering in some locations, and some of those responsible even got off completely.

http://www.plunderbund.com/2007/11/06/election-wor...


RE: trustworthy?
By sweetsauce on 11/3/2008 1:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
Its called selective memory. A strong trait in conservatives.


RE: trustworthy?
By mattclary on 11/3/2008 2:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
I see nothing that indicates the problem was caused by Republicans. I see two women who, for whatever reason, seemed to be trying to cover their a$$es. If it is possible to ascribe a "look" to conservatives and liberals, these women look more like Democrats to me. ;) And the county is described as a "Democratic Stronghold" which I interpret to mean the supervisor of elections was probably a Democrat.

http://rangevoting.org/OhioConvictns.html


RE: trustworthy?
By mattclary on 11/3/2008 2:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
Update:

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/01/25/d...

quote:
UPDATE II Reader David Singh tracked down the political affiliations of the BOE workers: David Singh wrote: I looked up the voter registration records for the three election workers in Cleveland who were on trial. I expected to see three registered democrats as you surmised. Luckily, all three had names unique in the Ohio voter reg. database @ publicdata.com. The surprising results: Maiden—Democrat Dreamer—Republican Grier—unaffiliated


RE: trustworthy?
By sgw2n5 on 11/3/2008 1:48:51 PM , Rating: 3
Neocons won by shady means in both 2000, and 2004, Florida and Ohio respectively.


i just don't understant
By omnicronx on 11/3/2008 12:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
Why do we need a paperless voting system? People should be filling out their voters cards as usual marked with a big X in the spot they want to vote for. Now when they are done they put it in a box, in which all ballots are put through a machine that counts the votes based on which column your 'X' was put in. This way even if someone did 'hack the system' there would always be the actual ballots to count manually if needed.

The morons responsible for spending billions of dollars on these systems should be slapped in the face. I understand this is a waste of paper, but it is the only way to fairly do it, you can't leave the possibility that some really smart person can somehow inject code into the system rig voting.




RE: i just don't understant
By chmilz on 11/3/2008 1:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
In Canada we go the voting station, show our ID, get a registered ballot and a pencil, mark our selection with an X, register marked ballot with voting station, drop the ballot into a box and go home.

Takes all of about 2 minutes and is simple. If the voter screws it up, they aren't smart enough to be voting anyway.


RE: i just don't understant
By walk2k on 11/3/2008 1:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
Paper votes have to be counted by hand, which can be very error-prone.

The entire global banking industry is 100% electronic. So is the stock market.

If computers are good enough for them, they should be good enough for voting. We just need to get more reliable and secure machines.


RE: i just don't understant
By BZDTemp on 11/3/2008 2:43:25 PM , Rating: 2
From what I can read the electronic voting systems are a lot worse than hand counting votes. But even worse seems to be that so many tricks are played with the whole system. I am sorry to say but the people running the election are the ones responsible for the doggy election computers, the misprinted ballots and all the other problems. One might expect in a corrupt banana republic to have such problems but not a nation which is great in so many ways except this!

As for the whole computer thing it's not like one has to have an election every day so efficiency is not the main target of the system.

Where I live votes are made by putting an X on a piece of paper. The voting place is maned by volunteers from each party and counting is done twice. First all votes are counted where one person looks at a pile of votes and this then becomes the first result. Afterwards all votes are counted again with two or more persons looking at the votes just to make extra sure - usually the numbers in the two counts are the same or very very close. This may sound unbelievable but remember that great pride is taken in the process.

Not only the people organizing the election take great pride in this. Usually the attendance is over 85% and that is of the whole population aged 18 or older.


RE: i just don't understant
By omnicronx on 11/3/2008 3:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The entire global banking industry is 100% electronic. So is the stock market. If computers are good enough for them, they should be good enough for voting. We just need to get more reliable and secure machines.
Theres a difference here though, if a mistake is made, or if someone illegally tampers with data, the issue can be rectified, and the person can be brought to justice. Whats going to happen if someone tampers with the voting system? Chances that it can be found and rectified before inauguration is very small.


RE: i just don't understant
By mherlund on 11/3/2008 2:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
What I don't understand is how hard can it be to make a touch screen voting machine that can't be hacked? Having a device with no external ports to connect to and only having the simple voting software. A process to compile the votes would need to be created.

The only way of hacking I can think of is by physically doing something to the machine either before/after the election, but how would that be different than someone doing something to the paper ballots before/after the election or during the counting of ballots?

Maybe I am just missing something.


E-voting
By kontorotsui on 11/3/2008 2:42:03 PM , Rating: 2
Good God!
By Spuke on 11/3/2008 7:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
"OLD PEOPLE!!!!" Demo's or Repub's. No one is blameless and everyone has an agenda. Pointing fingers at each other does absolutely NOTHING....LOL! Demo's vote for Demo's. Repub's vote for Repub's. Meanwhile, the non-political hardcore considers voting for Ralph Nader or other kooks because the two parties generally suck yet keep getting voted back into office time and again.

Neither candidate is a good choice and neither barely qualifies as the lesser of two evils. I'm WAY past tired of these vote whores but the lot of you clowns keeps putting these people right back into office along with their respective congressman.

When will the Reign of the Sheep end?!




A better way?
By majBUZZ on 11/3/2008 7:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
This seems like the way to go
http://www.securevote.us/




By NovoRei on 11/3/2008 11:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
Its easier, its simple and can be secure. The election finish at 5 pm and we know the results(~80%) at 10pm.




By KashGarinn on 11/4/2008 6:19:18 AM , Rating: 2
A computer is a fine hardware to use for a programmable UI, but most of these systems fail because the data is written into reprogrammable/rewriteable memory.

Instead of a harddisk or a floppy/Cd, if the unit writes each vote onto a harddisk-type hardware, something you then can't change, then you got a more secure option.

Have a system which shows you the options, you pick one candidate, the system hard-writes the selected option onto a non-rewritable solution, the system reads that solution directly from the partition and makes you verify that that is the option you picked, and then you're done.

The only reason people want a electronic solution instead of paper ballots is that it's easier and quicker to count, so make a hardware solution which makes sure that you can't rewrite over already written data, and make sure that you only send data when an official person is at the machine after every vote has been cast, and make sure that that person can verify the votes that are written to the machine (a simple sum of votes for each candidate) and what the receiving server gets back.

Then the hardware (not the whole machine but the smaller non-rewriteable harddisk) can be sent to a neutral central platform for verification in case the person verifying is a terrorist.




who cares about E voting
By SiliconAddict on 11/5/2008 3:09:40 AM , Rating: 2
Obama destroyed McCain anyways.....MWAHAHAHA...sorry. Dems have a history of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory that crap like this comes around so infrequently that a little gloating is required. So SUCK IT MCSAME!

Ahhh that was therapeutic....back to your regularly sched thread.




Amazed...
By bernardl on 11/3/2008 10:35:41 PM , Rating: 1
- Amazed that security was not a central concern when electronic voting was worked on,

- Amazed that about 40% of American voters still think that voting for the Republican party is a valid option considering the amount of manipulation, lies and mistakes that they have done with Irak (are these Christian values???),

- Amazed that these people believe that Bush was the culprit when it is totally obvious that he was only a face representing a line of thought that should only be called fascist,

- Amazed that the people considering voting Republican this time around don't question their own values and think of their place in history a bit more. How far are you going to support their actions??? Causing the death of 500.000 innocent people in Irak is not enough of a crime, seriously what would Republicans have to do for you to stop supporting them???

- Amazed that some people in the US seem to be unable to go beyond the Republican sticker that their father sticked on their forehead and look objectively at what is good for the man and woman of America,

- Amazed that the media having made this situation possible through utterly biased coverage and dissimulation are still watched by Americans.

The very fact that people still wonder whether Obama will win or not is a disgrace for America as a whole. How could American children believe in the future when some much hypocrisy has become the name of the game???

Cheers,
Bernard




"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki