A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Of course it is. Reminds me of the old SNL sketch where Bill Murray talks about his Catholic school's loss to the Hebrew school in the Christmas basketball tournament by saying "and....really....the refereeing could have been better..."

As I understand it, if Boxer wasn't willing to agree with the House objectors, this would go nowhere, except maybe that the House objectors could talk a little about the election reforms that are supposedly being brought forward. But now that everything has to grind to a halt, everyone focuses on "the Dems really want to fight this issue out". Nice work, Babs.

Do the Repub supporters have similar thoughts about the re-vote movement in the Washington governor race? I don't know much about it. Seems like a similar subject line could be used, but perhaps there's something else going on...

This can't make a difference in this election, and everyone knows that. But, there is significant angst about Ohio's voting problems in some circles (although there is significant ignorance of the reasons) and it's probably important to have this national debate just to let people feel like their issue has been raised, however cursory in scope. For the price - two hours of debate - it's far better to do this, and move on. Had this debate NOT occurred, we'd be listening to "they swept it under!!!" for four more years.

[Gattigap]

From Scrappleface:

• Gonzales Won't Answer, Cites Geneva Conventions
  by Scott Ott
  
  (2005-01-06) -- Alberto Gonzales, President Bush's Attorney General nominee, told the Senate Judiciary Committee today that he would state only his name, rank, date of birth and Air Force serial number, which is all that is required under the terms of the Geneva Conventions.
  
  Mr. Gonzales, who faces criticism from Democrat senators over a memo he wrote seeking to clarify whether the Geneva Conventions apply to terror suspects, refused to answer further questions from committee members at his confirmation hearing.
  
  White House spokesman Trent Duffy said President Bush hopes Senators will, at least, treat Mr. Gonzales according to Article 14 of the Third Geneva Convention, which states: "Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. "
  
  Mr. Gonzales' refusal to answer Senators' questions did not affect the committee's inquiry, which consists primarily of speeches to a gathering of journalists.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
For the price - two hours of debate - it's far better to do this, and move on.

It is for you guys. You aren't the sore losers here. Even Hank is scoring points off this one, despite his recent slump which saw him reduced to "the Clintons will kill me if I back up my point" argumentation.

It would have been better to raise the point and move on. Boxer is using Jo Galloway trial tactics.

Had this debate NOT occurred, we'd be listening to "they swept it under!!!" for four more years.

You'll hear it anyway. What else do we have to talk about?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
It is for you guys. You aren't the sore losers here..

No, I do think this moves things in a better direction than not, even for Dems. Even though the results won't change, no one should have to stand in line for seven hours to vote for prez. No election should be untraceable due to paperless results. There are good points being made here, and this is the only "right" time during which they can be made with any passion and weight. I don't think the Dems suffer for this at all.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, I understood that - but the structure of appellate v. trial is a very short, squat pyramid - you can't just spend more on the one case that's going to be appealed unless you have a crystal ball - you'd have to spend a lot more on trial counsel to make the difference of which Ty speaks. And, like I said, I agree that we'd be better off if we had bucks for all of the wishes that we can imagine.

OK, how about just cases where the death penalty is sought? That's where resources are being spent on appeal. 'Twould be better to get it right the first time.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, how about just cases where the death penalty is sought? That's where resources are being spent on appeal. 'Twould be better to get it right the first time.

Agree. Completely. (Or, better, spend nothing on death penalty cases - get rid of it.)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, I do think this moves things in a better direction than not, even for Dems. Even though the results won't change, no one should have to stand in line for seven hours to vote for prez. No election should be untraceable due to paperless results. There are good points being made here, and this is the only "right" time during which they can be made with any passion and weight. I don't think the Dems suffer for this at all.

It figures that you would agree with Barbara Boxer.


Wait. I'm confused.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It figures that you would agree with Barbara Boxer.

It's a knee-jerk thing with me.

(There are problems with our election process and the attendant tools. But, there was no fraud, no conspiracy, no intent to screw - hell, most of the problems occurred under the supervision of Democrat officials. Still, we should fix the problems. )

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, I do think this moves things in a better direction than not, even for Dems. Even though the results won't change, no one should have to stand in line for seven hours to vote for prez. No election should be untraceable due to paperless results. There are good points being made here, and this is the only "right" time during which they can be made with any passion and weight. I don't think the Dems suffer for this at all.

I was going to disagree with your prior post, which I thought was suggesting that raising all this was good as catharsis so we don't have to hear the fringe types (not in that sense, fringey) bitching about this for years. Disagree with that idea, since they'll bitch anyway. But agree completely with you here. Elections maybe work better than we expect them to, given that they are run only sporadically by county and municipal governments. If there's a time to fix things, now is it.

eta: Who put something in my drinking water? Or bilmore's?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by bilmore
No election should be untraceable due to paperless results.

I have generally been of the "come the paperless revolution" persuasion, particularly with respect to lawyering (where computing seems to have produced vastly more, not less, paper, sigh) but also generally, including with respect to voting. However, I have been set on my back foot by the fact that every last "computer guy" I have talked to about it insists that, knowing what they do about computers, they will never, never, never agree to vote electronically and will always insist on voting by paper ballot.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I have generally been of the "come the paperless revolution" persuasion, particularly with respect to lawyering (where computing seems to have produced vastly more, not less, paper, sigh) but also generally, including with respect to voting. However, I have been set on my back foot by the fact that every last "computer guy" I have talked to about it insists that, knowing what they do about computers, they will never, never, never agree to vote electronically and will always insist on voting by paper ballot.

In past lives I've written source code for programable controllers and computers. I will never, ever, ever, ever agree to vote on anything significant electronically. (Just to add to your anecdotal weight.)

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
In past lives I've written source code for programable controllers and computers. I will never, ever, ever, ever agree to vote on anything significant electronically. (Just to add to your anecdotal weight.)

I can understand that. I'm curious -- does the answer change if the result includes a printout of your selections, which can establish a hard-copy record?

I know that such an approach sorta makes the savings and speed advantages moot, but it does help ameliorate the fraud/bugs problems, and the hanging chad/no bubbles-filled-in problems.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I can understand that. I'm curious -- does the answer change if the result includes a printout of your selections, which can establish a hard-copy record?

Not at all. Easiest thing in the world to throw in a command that takes every tenth or fiftieth vote for John Doe and prints it out accurately but clicks one more vote for Joe Blow in the internal tabulator instead. That form of paper trail is useless unless, for a recount, you can get everyone who voted to show up again with their printed receipt for counting.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Not at all. Easiest thing in the world to throw in a command that takes every tenth or fiftieth vote for John Doe and prints it out accurately but clicks one more vote for Joe Blow in the internal tabulator instead. That form of paper trail is useless unless, for a recount, you can get everyone who voted to show up again with their printed receipt for counting.

Perhaps then a system which prints out the ballot (which is the official ballot), which the election officials keep, and then it's scanned to calculate the totals. Seems like electronics can help deal with the problem of people who don't understand or can't read or fill out a ballot the way they wanted to -- something that tells Grandma "You voted for Buchanan, you nitwit. Are you sure you meant to do that?"

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I have generally been of the "come the paperless revolution" persuasion, particularly with respect to lawyering (where computing seems to have produced vastly more, not less, paper, sigh) but also generally, including with respect to voting. However, I have been set on my back foot by the fact that every last "computer guy" I have talked to about it insists that, knowing what they do about computers, they will never, never, never agree to vote electronically and will always insist on voting by paper ballot.

We have an election that was won by 42 votes here in Harris County. One of the nice things about the recount was that it got to demonstrate to everyone that our electronic voting system (called eSlate) DOES generate a paper record. Of course the asshole Republican wouldn't let it go and has asked the legislature to overturn the entire election based on unspecified allegations of voter fraud and the hearing will be January 27.