Fahrenheit 9/11

[ExCyber]

lol OMG T3Y AR3 T3H GH3Y!!!! LOLZ BUTTS3CKZ!

As an antidote, maybe try this.

WARNING: The above link, while intended to be humorous, may provoke intelligent thought and/or introspection in both left-leaning and right-leaning individuals. Extremist bigots will probably just be offended. Not that there are any around here of course, but I may as well cover the bases.

 

[it290]

Unfortunately, I can't be bothered to read that article. I'm too tired.

 

[Lyzel]

Heh, I don't want to start a debate on the 2000 election, because that's in the past now... but I read an article somewhere about the 2000 election a while ago and lost it, and just happened to found a link to another article like it. See this link.

I know some people will swear to their momma that Bush stole that election and have believed that ever since, but please.. take this how you wish.. not to argue.

 

[it290]

While I don't believe that Gore won Florida, that article is hardly more informative than the statements it's disputing. It does bring up some good points, but at the same time, it doesn't cite which standards it's referring to wrt the recounts. However, although I think there are some problems with our electoral system, I don't wan't to argue about it either... I don't dispute that Bush won the election according to the rules, and I don't believe that the Supreme Court just handed him the election, either.

 

[VertigoXX]

And IMHO, the very fact that we can even question who really won four years later only validates the point that the system is flawed.

They keep talking about electronic ballot machines (a local company was to build them, but they've been halted). Why not computerize the ballot process. Not only does someone have to pick the name, they get to see a picture of the canidates. Then it asks if you're sure. Then it asks if you're really sure this is who you want to vote for. Kind of like Windows when you try to delete something (are you sure you want to move this to the recycle bin? are you sure you wish to delete this from the recycle bin?). The repetitiveness will piss of the 99.9% of the voting public smart enough to manage a ballot box, but will prevent the other 0.1% from being "disenfranchised." Plus, the counting would then be computerized, speeding up the results and eliminating the possibility of "errors" caused by things like friends and relatives of a canidate being in charge of counting the ballots.

 

[ExCyber]

Why not computerize the ballot process.

The main reasons that people are against computerization are that most of the proposed methods and hardware, in typical configurations:

- Is expensive

- Is grossly insecure against hacking

- Provides no means for the voter to verify that the machine actually recorded the vote they chose

- Provides no means for a credible manual count or recount in case of malfunction or hacking

Plus, the counting would then be computerized, speeding up the results and eliminating the possibility of "errors" caused by things like friends and relatives of a canidate being in charge of counting the ballots.

It would not eliminate the problem of corruption. Anyone with the power to influence vote-counting in a human system will have the power to influence vote-counting in a computerized system, and the counting process is already computerized in many places. Centralization and obfuscation of the process arguably exacerbates the problem of corruption; corruption is caused by unchecked power, and I can't think of a credible scenario where a computer can act as a check for the power of an election official without concentating even more power among even fewer individuals.