BS: Noted without comment - Secret Voting Software

Subject: BS: Noted without comment
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 29 Dec 06 - 06:58 PM

A judge ruled Friday that the Democrat who narrowly lost the race to succeed Rep. Katherine Harris in Congress cannot examine the programming code of the electronic voting machines used in the disputed election.

Circuit Judge William Gary ruled that Christine Jennings' arguments about the possibility of lost votes were "conjecture" and did not warrant disclosing the trade secrets of the voting machine company, Election Systems & Software.

The Jennings campaign said it will appeal.

"It's shocking that there is more concern for protecting a company's profits rather than protecting our right to vote," Jennings said in a statement

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Dec 06 - 07:35 PM

Agreed. Private profit must always take a back seat to the public good.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Dec 06 - 07:36 PM

I sure HOPE they appeal!!!! Evilness! End of Days! (anybody watch the Mayan prophecy show on Discovery? Kinda scary.....) Sorry for the thread drift.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Dec 06 - 07:38 PM

Thoughts about the neutrality of the judge are ALSO "conjecture".

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Dec 06 - 07:40 PM

There have been quite a few threads with this same "without comment" title over the years, making it difficult to find any of the articles later without tripping over all of the other "no comment" threads. The "I Read it in the Newspaper" thread was started to remedy this problem. FWIW.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 29 Dec 06 - 09:26 PM

SRS-
You're quite right. I apologize. (Could someone please change the thread name to "Secret Voting Software" or something like?)

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment - Secret Voting Software
From: Gurney
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 01:30 AM

Bit of a worry, that. If you cannot challenge for a recount, then the result can only raise suspicion, no matter how the count was made.

I wouldn't be happy either. Dictatorship methods, seems to me.
You could program any spreadsheet to do the count, how is that a secret?

Anyone ever read 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein?

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment - Secret Voting Software
From: Bert
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 01:51 AM

Anyone ever read 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein?

Yes, I'm reading it again right now.

I'm of the opinuion that if you can't verify that it is right, then it is obviously wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment - Secret Voting Soft
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 07:52 AM

Gee, would I have read about Mycroft/Michelle and the rest?

You might also like "Variable Star," the Heinlein novel recently released that was completed by Spider Robinson (and the money from which goes to the Robert Heinlein Society).

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment - Secret Voting Soft
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 07:55 AM

I must admit I'm unsure about inspecting the company's software like that. I do however believe in something rather more fundamental, a paper trail.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment - Secret Voting Software
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 09:49 AM

I've never bought "Republican-biased voting machines" conspiracy theories. However, I can see the possibility of programming errors which, in ambiguous situations, might allow a vote to go to the first candidate listed on the ballot, regardless of party affiliation.

In Florida, the order of candidate appearance on general election ballots is determined by the party affiliation of the current Governor. Since the Governor at the time of the 2006 election, Jeb Bush, is a Republican, the names of Republican candidates appeared first in all partisan contests. So, if there were to be a programming error it would likely equate to a Republican bias. If unresolved, it may become a Democratic bias at some time in the future, in which case we'll likely hear Republicans taking their turn doing the complaining.

It needs to be investigated, and Republicans need to understand that stonewalling is, ultimately, counterproductive to their own interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment - Secret Voting Soft
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 12:06 PM

And can anyone suggest what might be mysterious, arcane, complex or secret about software that tallies votes? Assuming that's all that it was supposed to do,

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment - Secret Voting Soft
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 01:35 PM

I don't know what these things are like Dick but as just one thought, how about built in secutity?

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment - Secret Voting Software
From: Cluin
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 01:45 PM

Shove the voting machines and stupid chads orwhatever they're called. Go bak to the simple paper ballot. Worked for years and it still works here in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment - Secret Voting Software
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 02:33 PM

Please note that all the voting controversies that have occurred in Florida over the last few years have taken place in South Florida. Each county in Florida buys whatever type of voting system the Supervisor of Elections in that county chooses. Most south Florida counties have chosen high-tech systems. We northwestern Floridians have mainly opted for machine-read paper ballots. At least we know that when a moron like George W. Bush wins in our counties it's due to idiocy on the parts of the voters, not some computer programmer.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment - Secret Voting Software
From: GUEST,MarkS
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 04:43 PM

Amazing how the Democrats complain about voting machine problems when they loose. I guess the majority winning Democrats in the Senate and House didn't have machinery problems in their districts.

Subject: RE: BS: Noted without comment - Secret Voting Soft
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 30 Dec 06 - 05:50 PM

clearly, MarkS, the ability to verify election results is vital, no matter which party is involved. The claim , in this case, is that 18,000 votes were lost. For all I know, they could all have been Republican. The infuriating thing is that, according to the most recent court decision, nobody will know.