bush_cheney2004 Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 ...I am fairly happy - those around me when they are not happy should get lost - I am tired of unhappy people with full stomachs and cash in their pockets. That's exactly what I'm talking aboot 'Bro.....that's just plain old bitching. When I was a kid, just 25 cents bought a lot of happiness. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 That's exactly what I'm talking aboot 'Bro.....that's just plain old bitching. When I was a kid, just 25 cents bought a lot of happiness. Trying to explain that to some young ones - I look at my youngest son - his very sweet and exotic girlfriend - they have youth beauty - passion and time - lots of time..rich with time - yet they seek to be miserable and bicker constantly about nothing of importance --- When my father died - I was 17 - we sold off properties and finally the money ran out...my bother and I would go out with a sled on a moon lite winter night - to drag wood back to the house for the fireplace to stay warm ---we had a 50 pound bag of potatoes - and some beef lard...no one told us that we were poor - we laughed and were full of joy - we were happy - because my mother was a positive and brave person ---she would say - "he who has no arms and legs is poor" --- meanwhile - my wifes family was different - If they were not spending twenty four hours a day - they were unhappy - consumerism was their religion - and that is hard to keep up with....there is never enough for them. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 ...my bother and I would go out with a sled on a moon lite winter night - to drag wood back to the house for the fireplace to stay warm ---we had a 50 pound bag of potatoes - and some beef lard...no one told us that we were poor - we laughed and were full of joy - we were happy - because my mother was a positive and brave person ---she would say - "he who has no arms and legs is poor" I'm trying to remember when it went sour....the idea of waiting 8 to 12 weeks for a plastic Batman and parachute after sending in a few cereal boxtops seems so quaint today. Instant gratification (like internet voting) can only lead to instant unhappiness. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 I'm trying to remember when it went sour....the idea of waiting 8 to 12 weeks for a plastic Batman and parachute after sending in a few cereal boxtops seems so quaint today. Instant gratification (like internet voting) can only lead to instant unhappiness. Loved the action figure with the little cheap parachute -- loved to toss it in the air - I remember that like it was yesterday -- I could create more than the whole movie in my head - but - you had to be careful packing that chute...you want it to open just so....we also made the coolest kites - send them up till they almost disappeared - as for internet voting ---- it's like this conversation we are having - instantly satisfying - then gone - It would be much better to be sitting in a boat with you catching bass....people have forgotten that there is heaven out there - but as prisoners of this complexity we live in - we type from our cells to people we will never meet - and vote for those we do no know. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 I'm trying to remember when it went sour....the idea of waiting 8 to 12 weeks for a plastic Batman and parachute after sending in a few cereal boxtops seems so quaint today. Instant gratification (like internet voting) can only lead to instant unhappiness. Loved the action figure with the little cheap parachute -- loved to toss it in the air - I remember that like it was yesterday -- I could create more than the whole movie in my head - but - you had to be careful packing that chute...you want it to open just so....we also made the coolest kites - send them up till they almost disappeared - as for internet voting ---- it's like this conversation we are having - instantly satisfying - then gone - It would be much better to be sitting in a boat with you catching bass....people have forgotten that there is heaven out there - but as prisoners of this complexity we live in - we type from our cells to people we will never meet - and vote for those we do no know. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 BC - going out to buy a pound of coffee....may as well avoid take out -- and some nice cream - got the place to myself and am well -----happy being lonely....thanks for the chat - and NO ELECTRONIC VOTING - IT'S THE DEATH OF DEMOCRACY.....instead of an Iranian theocracy - we will have a technocratic dictatorship - and our supreme leader will manipulate us...and we will not even be able to see the man behind the curtain....voting in this manner will be begining of the end of freedom - and it will be welcome to the Borg. Quote
Remiel Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 In the most charitable version of why the personal finances analogy is bad, the problem with it is that to screw up everyones personal finances, you have to hack dozens of banks systems. In order to screw up an election, you only have to hack one voting system. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 ....but - you had to be careful packing that chute...you want it to open just so....we also made the coolest kites - send them up till they almost disappeared.... You know it...pack that chute wrong and Batman was going to die. A paper kite cost ten cents....old rags made the tail. Simple. Just like voting should be....walk in....make your mark...walk out. Don't need no steenkin' Internet. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 You know it...pack that chute wrong and Batman was going to die. A paper kite cost ten cents....old rags made the tail. Simple. Just like voting should be....walk in....make your mark...walk out. Don't need no steenkin' Internet. If you can't make a personal appearance - then voting is not that important to you - maybe for the real lazy ones - we could install voting gizmos in public washrooms - two flushes - vote left - one flush- vote right....no flush could be a protest vote - mulitple non-flushes would signify numerous spoiled and soiled ballots...yah that would be handy - a voting lever... Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 If you can't make a personal appearance - then voting is not that important to you - maybe for the real lazy ones - we could install voting gizmos in public washrooms - two flushes - vote left - one flush- vote right....no flush could be a protest vote - mulitple non-flushes would signify numerous spoiled and soiled ballots...yah that would be handy - a voting lever... Hey, that's pretty funny. They actually used those big lever voting machines years ago...helped JFK steal an election from Nixon. (But he didn't whine about it.) I like what they do in Iraq....dip your index finger in some ink! All we get now is "I voted" stickers. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
xul Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) If the bank removes money from our accounts, people will notice. But if you vote for X and your vote comes out at the other end as Y you will never know. There is room in these electronic voting systems for widespread fraud if you're on the inside, and there have been strong allegations about just that happening in the US. There do have some difference, but people can still manage it by using some technical measures. People can allow more than two independent companies's softwares to count the votes, and the results of voters's votes which have been counted can be send into a independent encrypted database which is designed only can be checked by voter himself like we check our bank accounts. The user (it's the organization which in charges of the election) and the suppliers of the hardwares and softwares must be separated, so the suppliers only know that how many votes option_1 gets, how many votes option_2 gets..., but they can not know who will be option_1, option_2..etc, those will be defined by the user so the suppliers can hardly manipulate the votes; and the user doesn't know the code of programs, so it can not temper the results. The current manual counting system also has the problem which you have pointed out. When people puts their votes into ballot boxes, sometimes they don't believe that the votes can be counted fairly and correctly without any foul play, the event recently happened in Iran for one. Edited June 28, 2009 by xul Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) ....The current manual counting system also has the problem which you have pointed out. When people puts their votes into ballot boxes, sometimes they don't believe that the votes can be counted fairly and correctly without any foul play, the event recently happened in Iran for one. That's right....there is no perfect system. There have always been undervotes, overvotes, spoiled ballots, voter fraud, and miscounts. Edited June 28, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 An entirely automated electronic voting system would be far more secure and convenient than what we have now. There could also be methods in place to guard against fraud, such as the ability for people to check after the election who their votes were counted for, as well as the automatic release of raw vote data as it comes in to several independent organizations. Hacking the system could be made physically impossible through the use of quantum cryptography, a technology already in commercial use. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 That's right....there is no perfect system. There have always been undervotes, overvotes, spoiled ballots, voter fraud, and miscounts. With paper you have hard ware..you can touch it and keep track of the ballots - with electronics you have to worry about the latest wiz kid (with no ethics) who finds brilliant ways of manipultating soft ware --- You will always doubt the results of electronic voting - the evil wiz kid is out there and he is a freelancer who will work for top dollar - and of course meet a mysterious end after the election is over..it's just plain creepy to trust you life to a machine and someone who knows more about it than you. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 With paper you have hard ware..you can touch it and keep track of the ballots - with electronics you have to worry about the latest wiz kid (with no ethics) who finds brilliant ways of manipultating soft ware... My state uses a hybrid system....paper ballots are hand marked and optically scanned for batch counting by software. Ballots are saved for audits and recounts. I don't know what the big hurry is about reporting results beyond the usual instant gratification itch. Some voters really dick up their ballots but still shove them into the scanner instead of asking for a new ballot. They are embarrassed to admit their mistake. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Oleg Bach Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 My state uses a hybrid system....paper ballots are hand marked and optically scanned for batch counting by software. Ballots are saved for audits and recounts. I don't know what the big hurry is about reporting results beyond the usual instant gratification itch. Some voters really dick up their ballots but still shove them into the scanner instead of asking for a new ballot. They are embarrassed to admit their mistake. It's not that - if they make a mistake - they must show the scrutineer that the ballot is spoiled in order to get another one - and who wants to admit to a dweeb that you have not mastered the use of a pencil. The day of the ballot will pass...and once we are fully electronic - we can be like the Romans and press a thumbs down button - vote on line on who is to be executed or not --- a million hits and old sparky flashes up --- and we are gratified that we helped.....who knows what the future holds...with shock and awh came real time remote voting - on life and death issues...I don't like it - it's like tossing your vote like a buck into the federal reserve - once it's in there ---it belongs to someone else. Quote
Argus Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 An entirely automated electronic voting system would be far more secure and convenient than what we have now. Except the people who control the software can make it count whatever they want it to. So who controls the system? There could also be methods in place to guard against fraud, such as the ability for people to check after the election who their votes were counted for, As a former programmer I can tell you it would be child's play to get around any kind of safeguards you can think of. If you control the software it can do whatever you want it to do. It can spit out the appropriate vote for particular voters (keeping in mind that it has been the hallmark of our voting system that we don't record who voted for who) but it can still alter the totals in a dozen different ways. One of the problems with the American use of electronic voting machines is that the corporations making them are quite fervent supporters of the Republican party. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Oleg Bach Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 Every American voting machine has a back door - a rear entry - and through that rear entry they will f*** in the ass. Quote
Alta4ever Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 An entirely automated electronic voting system would be far more secure and convenient than what we have now. There could also be methods in place to guard against fraud, such as the ability for people to check after the election who their votes were counted for, as well as the automatic release of raw vote data as it comes in to several independent organizations. Hacking the system could be made physically impossible through the use of quantum cryptography, a technology already in commercial use. Nothing is impossible (hackers hacking)raw electronic data can be tampered with, having to leave you home to vote shows that you care about voting. There is no better system then the polling booth. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 Every American voting machine has a back door - a rear entry - and through that rear entry they will f*** in the ass. Yes...but not the Canadian voting "machines".....they just cheat the old fashioned way based on unions and EI. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) Nothing is impossible (hackers hacking)raw electronic data can be tampered with, having to leave you home to vote shows that you care about voting. There is no better system then the polling booth. Not getting out to vote demonstrates just about anything people wish to see. I know a fellow who refuses to vote who's gone to polling stations to encourage people to join him in protest. You certainly can't lable him as being lazy or unconcerned. The polling booth as we presently know it is too slow, cumbersome and expensive and it can't allow for more than one vote every few years or so at best. It was a great system for the horse and buggy era but in our day and age its pretty much a joke, a waste of time, a fart in a windstorm, a rubber stamp of approval. Like I said its many things to many people. I think this fear of hacking the system is way overblown but so be it. That said, is there any reason why we shouldn't spend what it takes to vote in the traditional manner but only a lot more frequently and on referenda and issues appropriate for direct democracy (i.e. not on minority rights issues)? The cost of doing so would show just how committed our country really is to democracy. People and governments often read a lot into the comparisons on how much is spent on things like health care and the military relative to other countries. I'd like to think that the amount we are willing to spend on practicing democracy would provoke other countries and governments to emulate us and start doing the same. Things like economies of scale and privatization of voting to some extent would hopefully start to bring the cost down. I'd rather spend money on voting more often than on tanks and guns. I think we could help spread democracy further around the world by setting a better example of how to spread it further around right here at home. Perhaps we could become experts in the business and have a new service to export. Edited June 28, 2009 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
August1991 Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 (edited) It seems Election Canada wants to try out voting on the internet because they think they will get more people out to vote. It may or may not, but the reason people aren't voting is they are losing faith in the people who are the leaders of the party or politicans in general. I am strongly against this because of the fraud that can and could occur. The electronic voting is NOT 100% safe as we heard during the Bush era.Topaz, I agree with you. But not beacaue of fraud.IMV, voting in a democracy is a symbolic act and it should occur in public, with people around. It's like marriage. Government bureaucrats may want us to move to Internet voting because bureaucrats want to imitate markets, and banks andebay for example now use the Internet. Democratic States are not like the market and civilized governments should not work like Internet banks. Casting a secret vote in public is one part of a Civilized State, and a democratic government. To sign a marriage contract, you need a witness. Internet voting is a dumb idea, by half. We should vote in public so that we know our neighbours voted and they know that we voted. We should go physically before others to vote secretly. Edited June 28, 2009 by August1991 Quote
Oleg Bach Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 I always bring along a photographer - You know that photo op..where I hold a ballot and pose - voting for myself..can you do that? Elections Canada does not want more people to vote- they want less to vote...why would they want more----oh I see - if no one voted there would be no Elections Canada..it's job creation - That really makes no senses but when have I actually been lucid or even coherent? Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 I would be all for internet voting, if it could be done from the home. If it could be setup with sufficient security systems in place, and if it was transparent and verifiable. Quote
tango Posted June 28, 2009 Report Posted June 28, 2009 We already have electronic voting: As soon as you hand your ballot in, it goes into an electronic scanner, that can be corrupted. My concern is that people without easy access to computers may not vote. It's a way of disenfranchising the poor. I believe public polls must still be set up for online voting as well. Quote My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples. Love it or leave it, eh! Peace.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.