Month: August 2004

  • E-Voting

    It is very frustrating to me that the implementations we have seen of electronic voting have been so abysmal. It is almost at a point where a cynical side of me starts wondering if people are purposely screwing it up just so we won’t implement it as soon.

    Here are my suggestions:

    * Have the code be open source or at least openly available for review and verification. Security is not gained through obscurity. It is obtained through adequate hardware protection, port lock down, and encryption.

    * The master database should be on a closed network, and the only physical access to hardware ports should be in a place that can be locked and/or monitored.

    * Counts should be done redundantly on all copies made of the data. Any variance should require a complete investigation.

    * At the point the vote is submitted, print 2 – 3 receipts. One goes into the ballot box, one goes to the voter, and a possible third one goes into a sealed ballot box.

    * Have some sort of unique identifier on the voter’s receipt. That should allow the voter to access their voting record via the phone or the Internet. This will allow for individuals to check that their vote is recorded correctly. The record would not reveal personal information about the voter.

    * Potentially allow for random auditing – where the auditors call voters and, if given permission by that voter, access and verify their vote.

    The largest issue with this method is that it is possible that someone may be able to access how someone voted. However, there are a number of methods to make this very, very difficult and possible to trace. Have that access and dispersion of that information as legally protected as possible.

    Frankly, given the choice between knowing that the votes are accurately counted and having a slim chance that someone find out who I voted for, I’d far rather risk the second, especially if there is very little chance of them “getting away with it”.

    If this is a major concern, the only need for the connection between voter and vote is for the random auditing. One could have allow voters to permit themselves to be audited. Only people who gave this permission would be entered into the auditing list.

    As far as “paperless voting”… What the heck are they thinking? I want receipts for my ATM transactions. I’d sure like a verifiable hard copy of my vote.

  • If you aren’t aware of what is going on in Sudan, you should be.

    A militant group made up of Arab Muslims called the Janjaweed has driven a couple of million black African Muslims from their homes. They have murdered tens of thousands. They have used systematic rape not only to torture and degrade, but also to force their victims to bear their children. They have forced their victims into remote camps where disease and death run rampant.

    Our congress has passed resolutions accurately calling these actions genocide, but we have not yet done any more. The U.N. has done nothing other than talk about sanctions. Every day that goes by is another day of rape and death for the victims of the Janjaweed in Sudan.

    Would you consider signing the petition at opendebates.org?
    We, the undersigned, support Open Debates’ campaign to reform the presidential debate process. We believe that the presidential debates should serve the American people first, not political parties. We support replacing the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates with the nonpartisan Citizens’ Debate Commission, so that inspiring formats can be employed, pressing national issues can be addressed, and popular independent and third party candidates can be included.

    A movie to see (found at Fraters Libertas):

    “Team America: World Police“, brought to you by the creators of South Park. A feature film with an all-marionette cast. “Putting the ‘F’ back in Freedom”

    This looks like a lot of irreverent fun.

    Some Russians scientists have figured out how to make food out of blood. It actually sounds pretty interesting. Slightly scary picture though.
    Paul Krugman took a pretty good swing at the current state of journalism. He mentions the Daily Howler, Campaign Desk, and Media Matters.

    Ted Turner also takes a jab at big media and the FCC. The source struck me as ironic, but it is well worth reading. A sample:

    “Let me be clear: As a business proposition, consolidation makes sense. The moguls behind the mergers are acting in their corporate interests and playing by the rules. We just shouldn’t have those rules. They make sense for a corporation. But for a society, it’s like over-fishing the oceans.”
    - Ted Turner
    My Beef With Big Media

    Speaking about the need for corporations to act contrary to the interests of society-at-large, there’s a local group called Citizens For Corporate Responsibility that is trying to change things so that part of a corporation’s responsibility is to its employees, communities, and the environment rather than just its shareholders.

  • Ballot Box Gambling.

    Those who would tell us to vote for one major party candidate because the other major party candidate must be defeated reduce our participation in Democracy to gambling.

    Rather than choose the person we believe to be the best candidate, we are asked to evaluate the odds of each candidate winning, factor in how favorable or disfavorable we find each candidate, and play the card that will have the best combined odds.

    Gambling in the ballot box:

    While I do not have a major problem with gambling and do enjoy playing the occasional hand of cards, it has never been something I felt comfortable risking much money on.

    I certainly don’t feel comfortable using it as my method for voting.

    To make matters worse, all the “good odds” options support things that I am very opposed to. Imagine if both the parties were pro-choice or both were pro-life. If that is an issue important to you, would you still vote for one of them?

    On a national level:

    They are both fully behind Free Trade and the war on drugs. They both support GMO. Neither supports IRV. They both support environmental protections being secondary to economic needs. They both support our unfailing support of Israel’s repression of the Palestinians. They both also support our military presence (to some extent) throughout the middle east. The list goes on.

    There are members of each party that do stray from the herd and who I agree with more. Sometimes, they stray far enough that I can vote for them. Their endorsed presidential candidates seldom do.

    Therefore, I will continue to ask for Instant Runoff Voting. I will continue to vote for the rare candidate who I can support. But although on occasion, I may break down and vote for the lizard in the privacy of the ballot box, I will never support the idea of gambling in the ballot box, and I will rail against those who would demand I do.

    Why do the Democrats and Republicans have such better odds anyway?

    It is fairly commonly accepted that the more funding you have, the more votes you will get.

    It seems to me that many corporations and many wealthy people/families financially support both the Democratic and Republican parties. In doing so, they effectively price third parties out of the game.

    I can only think of two good reasons to do this:

    A) The success of either party is in their interest. Generally, they fund one party significantly more than the other, but this would make sense if that party is somewhat MORE in their interest.

    B) They believe that their money will buy them influence and convince those parties to make policies that are more friendly towards them.

    If there are other compelling reasons to fund both parties, please let me know.

    I would like to give our politicians and the PACs something of the benefit of the doubt, so I am not going to claim the donations are for reason B – that would be blatantly corrupt and illegal.

    Therefore, in the absence of a better reason, it must be for reason A.

    The Daily Howler has three more quick campaign ’04 debunks:

    1) Kerry did not “Vote for the war and then vote against funding for the soldiers”. He DID vote for the war. He DID vote against the 87 billion dollar funding bill. However, he voted against it because there was another version he supported more. The funding bill he wanted passed would have also funded the soldiers. The version he supported would dropped the $690 billion tax cut to $600 billion so the funding was paid for up front. However, the Republicans didn’t support that version and the president threatened to veto it. The president also threatened to veto additional benefits for National Guards, and other provisions that Kerry supported. The Daily Howler covered this in a number of issues. To start, read the July 14th, July 16th, and July 17th issues.

    2) A popular current spin point is about how liberal Kerry and Edwards are. As much as I might like that to be the case, it is pretty much spin. Check the Daily Howler July 29th and July 30th issues, among others.

    3) Cheney’s claim that Kerry voted to cut taxes 350 times has been debunked by both the Daily Howler and Fact Check.

    Another Web Log to check out.