The error appears to belong to the user, me, though. The screens are typically aligned for shorter folks I find and that throws off my perspective. I am not really too concerned since the choice is highlighted with a big green checkmark as soon as I do it alerting me to the error. I simply tapped the right box and the checkmark moved up to the box I meant to hit. If I miss that I get a list of my choices at the end of the process to make sure I made the right choices and only then is the vote counted. Really I mean I wouldn't be mad the punch card if I stuck the pin in the wrong slot by accident either. If I did punch the wrong ticket it is difficult to tell with punchcards since you can hardly see which hole has been punched without removing the ballot from the machine entirely.

The tech isn't perfect yet but largely (outside of the malicious tampering issue) I think most folks don't like this because it is new. I assume punchcards saw simliar concerns when introduced ("what do you mean a machine is going to count this?") give it time, people will learn how to use the machines and the machines will get better. I think the choices should have very large boxes and the boxes should be on opposite sides of the screen maybe, determined randomly just so nobody frets that some old lady chose only the box on the right side of the screen because she is a Republican.

I think these "Glitches" are inherent in the system.

Glitches are inherent in any system though. I linked awhile ago to a story about the dead voting, one old lady said she knew her husband would want to vote for so-and-so so she signed and sent in his absentee ballot.

This happens because of a lack of communication between the county supervisor of elections and the state departments that collect death data. There have, to my knowledge, no instances of dead voters on machines as yet.

A quarter of a million US weapons are missing in Iraq

quote:

The US military cannot account for about 278,000 weapons destined for 325,500 members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Is that a different story from "$800m missing in arms deals"? It seems to be that they were given $1.2billion, stole $800m and then spent $400m on out of date weapons, of which £133m can't be accounted for.

US stops Iraq audit.

quote:

Washington lawmakers have reacted with shock at the discovery that an obscure clause in a military spending bill will terminate the work of the auditor.

quote:

Republican Senator Susan Collins told the New York Times she was mystified about how the termination clause had found its way into the bill.

You mean you didn't read the bill you voted for?

Looks like they have been trying to cut these folks out of the loop for awhile.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Found_Iraq_spending_b..._provision_0510.html

I couldn't find a story with the bill number in it so I can't read the text itself but a military spending bill would, I assume, run to several hundred pages. Not forgivable to miss this certainly but understandable nontheless.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: editengine,

Seriously, there are so many riders, amendments, etc. tacked onto bills that have no relation to the main substance of a bill, I'm amazed that more crap like this doesn't get pulled. But I'm with edit: the bill in question was probably just huge, with many authors. I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that something like that was slipped in.

I don't know, but in a democracy I'd expect my elected representative to actually read the bills they vote for and not just blindly follow the party line, particularly in a system that allows non-related riders to be added.

Who'd have thought, after all these months, that the verdict in Saddam Hussein's trial is likely to be given 2 days before the US mid-term elections?

quote:

Originally posted by Kradlum:
I don't know, but in a democracy I'd expect my elected representative to actually read the bills they vote for and not just blindly follow the party line, particularly in a system that allows non-related riders to be added.

Not sure if that is really likely. I mean have you ever read these bills? Most are written in legal language and the big ones are the size of a tom clancy book, and not the new ones that he just puts his names on but the ones he wrote back when he was selling insurance and wanted to spend as much time as possible away from his wife.

It has been a long long time since poli sci for me but I recall learning that Parliament has a much more streamlined process for passing bills, I wonder if part of that is that they cut ourt on non-related riders and amendments? My poli sci profs disagreed over which system was better, the us system is intentionally slower so more deliberation and comprimise is supposedly required but the british system is supposed to be more efficiant and responsive to the publics desires. How does a bill become law in the uk?

So what's the point in electing these people if they can't be expected to read and understand what they are voting on?

The UK system has no unrelated riders, so it is much more simple. The elected MPs vote, then our hereditary overlords decide if they think it is in their best interests. If it isn't they try to make the democratically elected MPs water it down and vote again. This goes back and forth until a compromise is reached (actually, I think the Lords can be overruled by the government at some point). Then the Queen decides whether she likes it or not (the last time she didn't was the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill, but the bill would never have been fully debated in Parliament, so it was more of a symbolic act). Which is obviously far more democratic

quote:

Originally posted by Kradlum:
So what's the point in electing these people if they can't be expected to read and understand what they are voting on?

well I think the dozens of staffers that supposedly poor over these things are expected to bring anything really wacky to their attention, and I expect most bills are read is some detail by the committee members on the committee that the bills originate from. Laws and sausage though, you know the saying.

quote:

The elected MPs vote, then our hereditary overlords decide if they think it is in their best interests. If it isn't they try to make the democratically elected MPs water it down and vote again. This goes back and forth until a compromise is reached (actually, I think the Lords can be overruled by the government at some point). Then the Queen decides whether she likes it or not (the last time she didn't was the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill, but the bill would never have been fully debated in Parliament, so it was more of a symbolic act). Which is obviously far more democratic

.

Wow I had no idea the lords and royals still had such power. is it common that they block laws from the elected mps?

I think if the monarch tried to refuse assent to a bill there would be a constitutional crisis (although how we have a constitutional crisis without a constitution is beyond me). The example I gave above was actually the Queen refusing consent for the bill to be heard in the first place, but the monarch can only do that for bills that directly effect the monarch's hereditary rights. The last time a Monarch refused assent was in 1708.

The House of Lords is a bit more complicated. There are plenty of types of bills that they cannot vote on, and others that they can only delay for a month or a year, and they cannot oppose a bill promised in a government's election manifesto. They are no longer all hereditary lords (and bishops are also included in the Lords) and they now have non-hereditary "people's peers" who are proposed by the people, and non-hereditary peerages that are proposed by political parties.

I wonder if the inclusion of some folks with hereditary positions injects a bit of a longer view into government. I mean it is their family that will have to deal with any mistakes they make.

Probably not.

Hey still watching that Democracy docu i started a thread on and they have a lot of clips from a 2004 interview channel 4 did with a diebold spokesperson where they grilled him on the security holes in the diebold voting system, which I understand is used in parts of the UK.

quote:

Originally posted by Kradlum:
Who'd have thought, after all these months, that the verdict in Saddam Hussein's trial is likely to be given 2 days before the US mid-term elections?

Me.

I don't think we use electronic machines anywhere in the UK, not even punch cards. All our counting is manual.

They said the UK had bought diebold. I am sure of that.

I think,

OK I have to watch the rest of it, I did find an old article here that they had tested Sequoias like my county so uses.

Localized test? Why that sounds downright....sane?

I love the New York Daily News

Rev does sex flap flip-flop

quote:

Haggard, who has also stepped aside as head of the New Life Church pending a church investigation, was among the evangelicals who join the White House's weekly Monday conference call with Christian leaders.

What is that for? Praying for a clue?