Angry

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

He absolutely has. Name one example where he hasn't?



McCain-Feingold

What illegal act did Bush do with respect to M-F?


Signed it into law!!!

Matt Barrow wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...


He absolutely has. Name one example where he hasn't?



McCain-Feingold

What illegal act did Bush do with respect to M-F?



Signed it into law!!!

That wasn't illegal. Stupid, but no illegal.

Matt

Ill advised: maybe. Illegal: no.

The Constitution gives the power to sign legislation passed by Congress
(Article I) to the President (Article II). The courts (Article III)
determine the constitutionally of the law.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

He absolutely has. Name one example where he hasn't?



McCain-Feingold

What illegal act did Bush do with respect to M-F?


Signed it into law!!!

"sfb" wrote in message news:dHxsf.27020$x%2.1088@trnddc06...
Ill advised: maybe. Illegal: no.


Signing into law that he knew (and stated as such) was unconstitutional....

If he'd premised that the law was valid, that'd be one thing; to say hefound
it unconstitutional and then to sign it anyway is MALFEASANCE.

Well, the USSC said it was okay, and we know how honorable that august body
is...

The Constitution gives the power to sign legislation passed by Congress
(Article I) to the President (Article II). The courts (Article III)
determine the constitutionally of the law.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

He absolutely has. Name one example where he hasn't?



McCain-Feingold

What illegal act did Bush do with respect to M-F?


Signed it into law!!!

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jose" wrote in message
news

This is news to me. I thought that the use of electronic voting with
secret and proprietary software, no paper trail, and no way to verify
after the fact that votes were counted the way voters think they ought
to
be counted came from Republicans presently in office.


You thought wrong. Democrats are even opposed to ensuring that only
eligible voters vote.


All the above summed up in 1960 by Mayor Daley. Count the votes (real and
imaginary), announce Kennedy wins big and 5 minutes later not a scrap of
evidence a vote ever took place.

The only difference between the lever voting machine and the electronic
voting machine is the technology. In both the voter does something on
the front and the magic machine internals increments a counter.

You mean both are voting machines?

The difference in the technology is 100% the issue. A manual lever
voting machine is mechanical, can be examined by anybody with even a
little bit of mechanical aptitude, and watched in progress to ensure
that the machine does what it says it will do. It is a fairly open
device. It would be hard to "rig" it undetectably. Whether these
machines are in fact examined before voting is not a function of the
machine, it is a function of the law.

An electronic voting machine works by software. There is nothing to
"examine" except the code, and if the code is secret and proprietary,
then there is no way to ensure that the machine actually does what it
says it does. No public official, indeed virtually nobody except the
programmer (and sometimes not even the programmer) really knows what
goes on inside the box. If the software were set up to move every
fiftieth vote into a different slot, but only on November 2, and only if
a few other conditions are met, nobody would ever find out. The machine
is inherently impenetrable.

An electronic voting machine whose software OTOH is open, public, and
whose compiling and loading into standard interchangable chips and media
is properly supervised is much more difficult to rig. I would have more
confidence in such a machine.

Now... what kind of voting machine is being foisted on us?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
[...]
An electronic voting machine whose software OTOH is open, public, and
whose compiling and loading into standard interchangable chips and media
is properly supervised is much more difficult to rig. I would have more
confidence in such a machine.

I would not. One of the most widely used open source programs (Firefox)
still regularly is found to have defects in it. Open source software is
still software, and it takes a huge effort to inspect the code and detect
flaws.

I do agree that an open source software voting machine is preferable. But
IMHO, the more important aspects are for the voting machine to provide a
paper record of the vote, and for the voting results to be audited.

Specifically, electronic voting machines ought to spit out a paper ballot
very similar to what is used today. The voter should inspect the ballot to
verify it has recorded their vote accurately. Then, some small percentage
of voting machines should be selected (randomly, of course) for their output
votes to be compared to manually counted paper ballots from those machines.

This would not, of course, guarantee 100% accurate results. But it would
come pretty close. It would be FAR more reliable than what is being
proposed these days by companies like Diebold.

Pete

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:59:06 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

Save the anger for things that
matter (like politicians who break the law, lie about it until they are
exposed, and then claim that they don't have to obey the law).

His days are numbered:



I could have sworn this was a recreational pilot Group? How about
canning the potitics? It's about FLYING!

More flight knowledge and common sense instead of potitics will keep
low time pilots alive.

One of the most widely used open source programs (Firefox)
still regularly is found to have defects in it.

Firefox is consumer grade. If it sort of works, that's good enough. I
would expect a higher level of vetting of voting software. And I did
not say it would be flawless, just that it would be significantly easier
to detect flaws with open source than with secret software, such as
proposed by Diebold.

Specifically, electronic voting machines ought to spit out a paper ballot
very similar to what is used today. The voter should inspect the ballot to
verify it has recorded their vote accurately. Then, some small percentage
of voting machines should be selected (randomly, of course) for their output
votes to be compared to manually counted paper ballots from those machines.

Yes, of course. In addition to the software being not secret.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

People have been rigging lever machines since Moses was a pup.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
The only difference between the lever voting machine and the
electronic voting machine is the technology. In both the voter does
something on the front and the magic machine internals increments a
counter.

You mean both are voting machines?

The difference in the technology is 100% the issue. A manual lever
voting machine is mechanical, can be examined by anybody with even a
little bit of mechanical aptitude, and watched in progress to ensure
that the machine does what it says it will do. It is a fairly open
device. It would be hard to "rig" it undetectably. Whether these
machines are in fact examined before voting is not a function of the
machine, it is a function of the law.

An electronic voting machine works by software. There is nothing to
"examine" except the code, and if the code is secret and proprietary,
then there is no way to ensure that the machine actually does what it
says it does. No public official, indeed virtually nobody except the
programmer (and sometimes not even the programmer) really knows what
goes on inside the box. If the software were set up to move every
fiftieth vote into a different slot, but only on November 2, and only
if a few other conditions are met, nobody would ever find out. The
machine is inherently impenetrable.

An electronic voting machine whose software OTOH is open, public, and
whose compiling and loading into standard interchangable chips and
media is properly supervised is much more difficult to rig. I would
have more confidence in such a machine.

Now... what kind of voting machine is being foisted on us?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.