About Me
- Name: Nick W.
- Location: Wisconsin, United States
Libertarian observations from within the Ivory Tower by an archivist, librarian and researcher.
Email me at
libertarian_librarian@hotmail.com
Worth a visit or two
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Ornery American
- Iraq the Model
- Dennis the Peasant
- Tim Blair
- James Lileks
- Views from the other side of the aisle
- Views from the XX side of genetics
Archives
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
A university is just a group of buildings gathered around a library. ~Shelby Foote
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
TC is Right!
If we can't count on fair elections in this country, American Democracy is over.
It's that simple.
I agree. Well, to a point. That's probably overstating things a bit-- it's not that simple (nuance, remember?) but it's close. Voting is a remarkable thing-- all those blue-fingered Iraqis pretty much proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt recently. But if the vote's integrity is in doubt, or worse yet, known to be fixed, then you have a Banana Republic.
And right now, there seems to be very little reason to have confidence in the Diebold Voting Stations. They CAN easily be hacked, and digital is the most transient, fragile and easily modified way to store data ever invented. Whether accidentally or intentionally, the integrity of digital data is hard to ensure.
All of which is totally separate from this. But there is this little thing known as "conflict of interest" and it's not irrelevant or of little import. Quite the contrary. I have problems, substantial ones, with what seems a pattern with Wisconsin's Governor Jim Doyle getting large campaign donations from companies that shortly thereafter get lucrative state contracts, but at least those companies are not integrally associated with the voting process itself.
For the head of a company that makes voting machines to make comments about "delivering elections" is... stunning in either its audacity or its stupidity. It is possible that O'Dell merely meant he's going to bust his tail to get Republicans to the polls and donate his personal money to help Bush get re-elected. But even if that were the case, the phrasing is so god awful bad that it's hard to imagine someone that stupid running a multi-million dollar company.
And if he really meant that his machines would help get Bush re-elected... well, then he should be going to prison.
Either way, when you roll the general fragility of digital data in with some serious questions about the company making the voting machines, and O'Dell's crappy-ass voting machines shouldn't be used in something as important and central to our country's foundation as voting for our elected representatives. On that, tc is correct, and I agree with him 100%.
Well, okay, not about the Right-controlled media thing... but he got most of the post right.
Labels: Politics
Comments:
<< Home
Diebold must die, they have shown a long and remarkable history of having no clue whatsoever in regards to digital security.
That said, Diebold does not scare me one bit as far as fixed elections for ONE party simply due to the fact that the security short comings of their machines are so glaring that should voting fraud occur neither 'side' has any advantage.
Diebold isn't holding some secret back-door code that can swing the election in one parties favor, on the contrary their machines are so easy to hack, if fraud were to occur it would come down to which side put more energy into it.
So it's not stealing an election that concerns me about these machines as much as the simple fact they encourage fraud to occur, which of course is not something you want.
That said, Diebold does not scare me one bit as far as fixed elections for ONE party simply due to the fact that the security short comings of their machines are so glaring that should voting fraud occur neither 'side' has any advantage.
Diebold isn't holding some secret back-door code that can swing the election in one parties favor, on the contrary their machines are so easy to hack, if fraud were to occur it would come down to which side put more energy into it.
So it's not stealing an election that concerns me about these machines as much as the simple fact they encourage fraud to occur, which of course is not something you want.
# posted by 
: 1:33 PM
: 1:33 PM
I agree Craig. But the fact that the head of Diebold used the language that he did "delivering and election" is just appalling. The head of a company that makes voting machines talking about delivering elections is pretty much the definition of conflict of interest.
The fact that Diebold sucks and their machines are hackable by a mechanically inclined chimpanzee is truly and deeply disturbing. O'Dell's comments merely compound the issue, but they are worthy of disparagement in and of themselves.
The fact that Diebold sucks and their machines are hackable by a mechanically inclined chimpanzee is truly and deeply disturbing. O'Dell's comments merely compound the issue, but they are worthy of disparagement in and of themselves.
Craig, I'm a Democrat and you can't convince me the Democrats can pull their collective heads out of their collective asses long enough to pull off a scam like that.
It takes the kind of secure, ends-justify-the-means staff and organization that Republicans excel at.
C'mon. convince me otherwise.
Post a Comment
It takes the kind of secure, ends-justify-the-means staff and organization that Republicans excel at.
C'mon. convince me otherwise.
<< Home
