Subject:
|
Re: Two questions for the Conservatives and/or Republicans out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Oct 2006 17:44:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2148 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
Well, I am not beholden to Diebold for anything. It seems to me that the
bottom line is that you don’t trust them, not the equipment they produce.
Companies will always have some bias, either left or right; that is a given.
What doesn’t follow is that because of that bias, they will act nefariously
to benefit their political POV. What is more likely is that they will act
nefariously to “keep the gig”. The solution would be to keep the process
competitive so that the incentive is accurate performance, or face losing the
contract.
|
I don’t trust Diebold, that’s true, but I wouldn’t trust any company in the same
situation, even an avowed Liberal company. Diebold is on record promising to
deliver Ohio’s votes to the President in 2004, and lo and behold...
In addition, I don’t trust the machines or the software, just as I don’t trust
the heavy-handed methods by which communities were forced to adopt them (or else
lose millions of Federal dollars for election funding).
Ohio is a great example, by the way, but there are many others.
| |
I like your idea of transparency, but OTOH, I can understand why Diebold is
reluctant to give up IP (every company would balk IMO).
|
Well, too bad for Diebold (and for other e-vote companies). We’re not talking
about a new OS or photomanipulation software; we’re talking about the very
foundation of our democracy. If a company wants to get in on that, then that
company should be required to make certain concessions. Do we place a higher
priority on electoral reliability or on the corporate bottom line? So far it’s
apparent that the current governmental majority favors the latter.
| |
What happened in FL in 2000 is probably a lot more common than we care to
realize.
|
Then the solution should be to fix that problem and not to create a new one
alongside it!
I make no secret of my view that Gore won in 2000 and Kerry won in 2004, but
even if they’d been the acknowledged victors, I would be calling for the same
transparency and verifiability.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
17 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
