| Re: voting machines |
Posted via Supernews, ht .. |
| Dale Houstman (dmh7@citilink.com) |
2003/11/19 06:09 |
Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Dale Houstman <dmh7@citilink.com>
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism
Subject: Re: voting machines
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 07:09:04 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <3FBB6B70.400@citilink.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <uehp81-0tb.ln1@delillo.lsr.ph.ic.ac.uk> <3FBA1BCB.61C6FAAA@blueyonder.co.uk> <ng0s81-u9m.ln1@delillo.lsr.ph.ic.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 58
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.surrealism:880
Paul Kinsler wrote:
> Paul Heslop <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Electronic Voting Debacle
>>
>
>>It's a little like locking the door after the Bush got in
>>though, isn't it?
>
>
> Bush got elected because the result hinged on one close ballot,
> pushed in his favour by dodgy counting of the physical records of
> voting. Close ballot results are often controversial,
> with much debate over how to interpret ticks, crosses, chads, or
> the other creative processes by which voters don't (or can't)
> quite follow the instructions exactly.
>
> The electronic voting schemes described in the article have
> no permanent physical record of how people voted, so recounts
> are an impossibility; furthermore the machines are so insecure
> the totals could be changed before, during, or after the
> voting period, pretty much by anyone -- but especially so by
> "friends" of the companies selling them. And since there is
> no physical record, a recount is impossible.
>
> With such machines, an evil Bush-oid could have skipped the
> tedious process of recounting, and simply chosen the voting
> totals they wanted. As could an evil anti-Bush-ite, or anyone
> with access to the machines or their communications. At least
> the Florida counting was visibly controversial, so processes
> can be corrected.
>
> Don't get so hung up on the Bush-Florida thing.
>
> #Paul
The American electoral system - in fact, the entire "democratic" process
in the U.S. - is so corrupted by any number of things (mainly "free
speech" as exemplified by money), that this is just another pit in the
cherry, all in all. But I see no reason not to get "hung up" over the
Florida events, since the hanging chads were hardly the only bit of
dirty work being done there. Other dirty work included the creation of
quite a number of instant Afro-American felons, thus removing those
people from the process all together. There were also many accounts of
boxed voting sheets being "disappeared" in specific areas. And so on. I
suspect that many manipulations of "facts" along these "old school"
lines will continue to be prominent in the future, just as computers
have not reduced the paper load, and modern weapons have not made the
foot soldier a thing of fading bittersweet memory. We shouldn't focus on
this new "glory" of modern capitalism/democracy to the exclusion of
other - perhaps less flashier - exploitations, if we are to disassemble
what has become a very malicious and obsessive/compulsive system of
oligarchists and religious nutcakes.
dmh
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
|
|