Chavez Picking Our Next President?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Electronic Voting Machines

"The federal government is investigating the takeover last year of a leading American manufacturer of electronic voting systems by a small software company that has been linked to the leftist Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chávez."

[phee]

Electronic Voting Machines

"The federal government is investigating the takeover last year of a leading American manufacturer of electronic voting systems by a small software company that has been linked to the leftist Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chávez."

That is a very interesting concept....

[Msterbeau]

I'm more worried that the two leading manufacturers are run by people who Bush/Republican supporters. Their machines source code was recently posted on the web and security experts pointed out that many of the same security problems that existed in earlier versions are still there.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Having another governments fingers in our election process scares the hell out of me.

[phee]

Having another governments fingers in our election process scares the hell out of me.

I guess that makes sense... you would rather have our own elected officials lying to us, rather than someone elses...

[Msterbeau]

Until all the machines have verifiable paper trails and the underlying software can't be messed with by altering a simple database file, I won't like ANY of this electronic voting stuff.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Phee... sorta... I dont want another country picking who wins to fit thier needs. I would go so far as to say that anyone that worked with another government to help them rig our elections should be shot as a traitor.

Marc, thats exactly why I don't like electronic machines at all. It's software. There is no way to make it 100% hacker proof.

Really, there is no 100% way to run an election without some fraud. We have been trying to get the thousands of registered Democrats in Illinois to stop voting from the grave for 50 or 60 years.

[Shade Everdark]

It's very convenient, isn't it, that the one example provided is about voter fraud by the Dems.

I would pose the following question: Why is it that in every case of electronic voting machines miscasting votes, it always always always seems to be in favor of the Republican party?

Most recent example: Miami Herald Oct. 28

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Convenient.. or the one case of voter fraud that has been proven to have happened that popped into my head. 90% of voter fraud that sooposedly happens turns out to be a sore looser throwing a fit.

Let me pose a question to you.. why is it that the Democrats call voter fraud every time they loose? Why is it so hard for them to understand that not everyone buys thier bullshit? Look at their favorite election... 2000. The whole hanging chad thing in Florida. Did you know that when the recounts were going on.. they tried to claim that 19,000 votes were soposed to be for Gore but the ballets had been punched for BOTH Gore and Bush. They ignore the fact that 19,000 registered voters from that area do that every election to protest the Republicans and the Democrats. They also tried to claim that everyone that voted for a 3rd party really wanted to vote for Gore. So the votes should be counted that way.

[HipsterDufus]

The only thing that makes me trust that voting is somewhat accurate is that there has been (historically) a balance of powers between the conservatives and liberals. If it ever gets really out of whack with one side constantly controlling everything, then I'll start getting a little bit worried. For instance, if the pendulum doesn't swing back after this election, I'm seriously going to start wondering...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

The Republicans have only controlled Congress for 12 years. The Democrats controlled it for 40 years before that.

In my opinion, what has soured the wine, so to speak... is the whole Liberal/Conservative thing. No one wants to compromise anymore. Everything is so polorized that no one can see the middle anymore. People are so worried about who thought of something that they don't bother to see if it's a good idea or not.

We need to get rid of the last 100 years of campaign laws that have locked us into a two party system. The Democrats and Republicans have reworked the laws so that no one who is not from those partys can get elected. Well, they can, but it's a lot harder for an independant than someone from the two major partys.

[phee]

The Republicans have only controlled Congress for 12 years. The Democrats controlled it for 40 years before that.

In my opinion, what has soured the wine, so to speak... is the whole Liberal/Conservative thing. No one wants to compromise anymore. Everything is so polorized that no one can see the middle anymore. People are so worried about who thought of something that they don't bother to see if it's a good idea or not.

We need to get rid of the last 100 years of campaign laws that have locked us into a two party system. The Democrats and Republicans have reworked the laws so that no one who is not from those partys can get elected. Well, they can, but it's a lot harder for an independant than someone from the two major partys.

Indeed... good post...

It turned into a power struggle instead of differing ideas...

[HipsterDufus]

Good call, Mark. I was just thinking about that last night. Seems like the majority of Americans agree on a lot of things. It'd be nice to focus on those instead of our differences. Gonna be hard, because, as you mentioned, we've got 100 years working against us

[Msterbeau]

The Republicans have only controlled Congress for 12 years. The Democrats controlled it for 40 years before that.

In my opinion, what has soured the wine, so to speak... is the whole Liberal/Conservative thing. No one wants to compromise anymore. Everything is so polorized that no one can see the middle anymore. People are so worried about who thought of something that they don't bother to see if it's a good idea or not.

We need to get rid of the last 100 years of campaign laws that have locked us into a two party system. The Democrats and Republicans have reworked the laws so that no one who is not from those partys can get elected. Well, they can, but it's a lot harder for an independant than someone from the two major partys.

+1

[torn asunder]

We need to get rid of the last 100 years of campaign laws that have locked us into a two party system. The Democrats and Republicans have reworked the laws so that no one who is not from those partys can get elected. Well, they can, but it's a lot harder for an independant than someone from the two major partys.

this is exactly why i will *never* vote for a "repiblicrat" - i'm voting 3rd party for anything i can, i just find the one that most closely fits my beliefs...

[BrassFusion]

this is exactly why i will *never* vote for a "repiblicrat" - i'm voting 3rd party for anything i can, i just find the one that most closely fits my beliefs...

Might you want to push for a better method of vote counting, then, so your vote doesn't become meaningless at virtually every election? We HAVE the technology. We CAN rebuild him.

Er.

In other words, every voter lists about five candidates in order of preference. Let's say in 2004, I could've voted for Kerry then Nader then someone else (honestly, I didn't even bother reading third-party platforms. It's pointless in our system).

The candidate with the fewest first-priority votes is eliminated, and the second tier is considered. If Nader would've been the first to be eliminated, people who voted Nader-Kerry would be recorded as a vote for Kerry.

Then the second tier is eliminated in the same fashion. That way, everyone would be free to vote third party as a priority over Republican or Democrat without their vote being "lost." We do have the technology to implement a system like that.

The one factor I could see with that system, however, is the most middle-ground candidates with the widest appeal would always win, because they'd end up near the middle or top of most everyone's priority list. Like me, I'd vote for Joe Moderate Asshole somewhere beteween Nader (high priority) and Bush (never, never, never, please).

Campaigns would be increasingly wishy-washy and devoid of mudslinging, content, and opinions.

Ah, screw it. My new system idea sucks almost as bad as the current one.

[Msterbeau]

Might you want to push for a better method of vote counting, then, so your vote doesn't become meaningless at virtually every election? We HAVE the technology. We CAN rebuild him.

Er.

In other words, every voter lists about five candidates in order of preference. Let's say in 2004, I could've voted for Kerry then Nader then someone else (honestly, I didn't even bother reading third-party platforms. It's pointless in our system).

The candidate with the fewest first-priority votes is eliminated, and the second tier is considered. If Nader would've been the first to be eliminated, people who voted Nader-Kerry would be recorded as a vote for Kerry.

Then the second tier is eliminated in the same fashion. That way, everyone would be free to vote third party as a priority over Republican or Democrat without their vote being "lost." We do have the technology to implement a system like that.

The one factor I could see with that system, however, is the most middle-ground candidates with the widest appeal would always win, because they'd end up near the middle or top of most everyone's priority list. Like me, I'd vote for Joe Moderate Asshole somewhere beteween Nader (high priority) and Bush (never, never, never, please).

Campaigns would be increasingly wishy-washy and devoid of mudslinging, content, and opinions.

Ah, screw it. My new system idea sucks almost as bad as the current one.

Your system exists my dear. It's called "Instant Runoff".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

[BrassFusion]

Your system exists my dear. It's called "Instant Runoff".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Now that I read about it, my system sounds pretty streamlined and awesome. Let's do it.