Graphic voting systems

But they can hire people with that knowledge, and insist that the manufacturers allow them to inspect the code under an NDA.

As it is now, it seems that the commissioners have nothing more than marketting materials to guide them.

The quality of web pages rarely says anthing about the quality of what the company actually does. In this case, it's not a company, but a consortium of volunteers, who probably think the product is more important than a web page.

I don't know how it is today, but in Canada in the past the media (radio and TV) were forbidden from reporting election results until the polls closed in their own timezone. This was hardly leakproof, but still quite effective.

There unfortunately is a time limit on the election, due to a constitutional amendment. That was part of the reason the Supreme Court got involved in the first place. A few weeks wouldn't matter much though.

The winner cannot be inaugurated for another two months, (some of which goes back to paper counting days and transmission of results), so a day would make no difference.

Mind you there's the brilliant success the present administration has had in *creating* terrorists. Iraq is now a factionalized anarchy and a nursey for international terrorism. In the Arabic mindset, the recent army abuse scandals have destroyed the last lingering justification for US intervention there.

This is a gross misrepresentation of what happened.

The Florida Supreme Court decided that there were serious problems with the counts throughout the entire state, and ordered a recount throughout. The US Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the recount.

Now I don't want to get on a high-horse, but in democracies if there is some kind of doubt about the reliability of the vote, the credibility of the democracy itself is threatened. If you have an arm of the state stepping in to prevent votes being counted, the damage to that credibility becomes permanent.

Clearly there are serious problems with the independence of vote verification procedures in the USA.

You can't possibly be claiming that the electoral college system is fair.

I have attended electoral counts in the UK. They are long and laborious, but the entire process is monitored by *all* the candidates who stood in the election. Each one is invited to the count (along with supporting staff) to watch the count (which is performed by hand) being conducted. You can stand all day and look over the shoulder of the electoral staff as they do their job. Arguments about recounts or the counting of spoiled ballots are resolved between electoral officials and all of the candidates present.

The above advantages would all be lost of electronic or mechanical vote-counting were introduced. That's the main reason why I'd be completely opposed to such a measure; they are an attempt to solve a problem that does not exist.

What might have been...

Roosevelt : We have nothing to fear but pissed off enemies.

Churchill : One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. (possibly a real quote)

Truman : We must end this now, but we cannot harm a single Japanese citizen in the process.

Eisenhower : who cares

Kennedy (the good one, not the fat drunk) : Gee, I guess if the Soviets want to store a few missiles over there we should let them. Don't want to make them angry.

Johnson (the worst US president) : who cares

Clinton (the other worst US president) : Don't bother me when I'm playing golf. I don't care if we're being attacked.

Bush 2 : (fill in your quote and snicker to yourself)

I, and many other USans, don't give a FF about today's mindset of the upset, displaced, illiterate folks who hate us enough to kill us. If it's a race, I'll put my money on us.

In the US we have many weak-willed appeasers with no sense of history and a self hatred and a hatred for their fellow citizens. You have some too. These people often get on TV, and they provide comfort for their likeminded folks. They don't matter.

As a little aside (since the Iraqis had far less involvement in supporting international terrorism than the USA), it is worth remembering that in the prime of Hussein's Iraq, before the US decided to stop treating him as a friend and to trick him into invading Kuwait, Iraq had the highest literacy rate in the world.

Note - I'm not defending S.H. - there was a lot wrong with the man and the way he ran Iraq. But just remember that before the US started messing with that country so badly, Iraqis were known for their high education standards (particularly their medical schools, for some reason), their friendliness and their hospitality. You can well argue that the US actions were necessary because of S.H. (I disagree, but there is certainly enough for an arguement), but the US has a very large responsibility for the state of the Iraqi people today.

And most "anti-American" feelings across the world are directed at the American president and authorities - particularly the current one, but also previous ones, rather than at "Jo Six-Pack". But a terrorist who wants to harm the American State can generally only do so by harming its people - just like when the US (along with its band of willing or paid-for followers) wanted to harm the Iraqi State, they starved its populace and them bombed and poisoned their cities.

... snip ...

The present uproar over prisoner abuses brings up the whole 'leadership' question. There is no doubt whatsoever that the chain of command led from the abusers to Rumsfeld and thence to Bush. There is a slight argument over which level should shoulder the blame. I submit that a regime that jauntily destroys human rights with such atrocities as the 'Patriot Act', the Guantanamo Gulag, and repeated attempts to imprison people with no recourse, lawyers, communications etc. is not capable of inspiring confidence in other populations, especially suspicious Muslims.

The only real hope of clearing the morass is to put the matter squarely in the hands of the UN, and simultaneously to throw the rascals out. Up to a point all this can be done immediately, completion will take another eight months or so, but the matter can be settled in six.

Talk about gross misrepresentation - apparently this is where our foreign friends get their news. The Florida court ordered the recount of *only the undervote.*

But, of course, the action of the court was to prevent *selective* recounting.

That's not even an issue. You may have your own opinion on the subject, but the fact is that the electoral college is the way it's done, whether you like it or not. Feel free to become a US citizen and campaign for a change.

propably, I take money from one :(

absolutelly

Pozdrawiam.

give everyone digital signature (signed with a trusted CA, allready on some driving licenses or passports) and let them look up voting results online, let them decide to open theyr vote for pubic view or "for theyr eyes only" (signature based login in the system).

TADA, yes, its THAT simple. Ironically its too simple and PITG(*) dont want that.

agreed

Electronical elections in India were wery succesful.

• - pigs in the goverment

Pozdrawiam.

One reason is that anytime you have a system in which you can prove your vote, you introduce the possibility of selling your vote. Most find this possibility repugnant in a democracy. Separating the verified voter from the verified vote at the ballot box eliminates this.

Thad