Nevada voting machines going for Reid

[Crossroads Inc.]

It's a bit more psychically exhausting when you realize that you might actually wind up governed by them.

Even I have greater respect for your countrymen than that. I can't imagine the serious voter who would intentionally vote for an O'Donnell, or an Angle.

Then you don't know America as well as you think. Angle has a VERY good chance of being elected and while O'Donnell has no chance, there are quite a few other people who DO have good chances of being elected who are just as mindless and extreme as she is.

[ShadowDragon8685]

It's a bit more psychically exhausting when you realize that you might actually wind up governed by them.

Even I have greater respect for your countrymen than that. I can't imagine the serious voter who would intentionally vote for an O'Donnell, or an Angle.

That's because you're not a countryman of said countrymen.

Having lived in this country all my life, I can safely say that the number of batshit insane people in this country is very high, and unfortunately a large number of them are drinking the Republican cool-aid.

Remember, this is the country where a guy whose actions would not be out-of-place on trial at Nuremberg gets consistently re-elected to 'administer justice'. This is the country where Yukon Barbie got terrifyingly close to the office of President (The vote swinging McSame and then the old man's ticker giving out would have sat her in the big chair.)

Never underestimate the insanity of the American voting public. Those who are in said camp of insanity are driven and motivated to vote, and they happily use every trick in the book - everything from scare tactics and other voter suppression to using their wholly-owned subsidiary propaganda arm, AKA Fox, to blather outright lies and virulent misrepresentations, to outright fraud (DIEBOLD, 2000?)


Alyeska, you make some good points about fraud begetting fraud. But you still haven't addressed the fact that if not perpetrating fraud results in fundietarded morons getting into office, the country, its people, will be materially harmed by doing so - bodily harmed, in fact. Can you really say the ends justify the means in allowing a population of lunatics, morons, kool-aid drinkers and reactionary, hate-filled bigots to elect in a cabal of corporate cock-worshipping sell-outs who're glad to see the people they were supposedly elected to serve dying in the streets if it means protecting the profits of the insurance 'industry', bible-thumping hatemongers and chicken-hawk warmongers who get their cocks hard by sending off scores of our country's young men to die killing brown people?

I can't say that to be so any more. We're living the ends, and frankly the idea of the ends continuing to go the way they're going scares the shit out of me, not the least because I know it'll (literally) be the death of me someday.

We're looking at the failure case for our system of democracy. It's not producing outcomes remotely in-line with the goals of protecting the American people, it's producing outcomes protecting the interests of corporations, producing outcomes supporting the goals of reactionary and bigoted, hate-filled elements of society. It is breaking down, in part because the other side* is perfectly willing to resort to the very tactics you say are not worth resorting to!

What this country needs, frankly, is some kind of a pollitical messiah, a populist crusader willing to show up and loudly denounce the other side's antics for what they are, to wield every flexing muscle of power, from the legal might to take them to task to the media coverage to denounce them, to giving strident speeches in the halls of legislature to whipping those who have the power to vote against them but are not doing so into line.

We elected him, and he's failed at all of those, repeatedly and stupidly insisting on extending a hand of friendship to those very same elements who deserve nothing but the contempt of emnity, and persisting in doing so even after they sieze that hand and use it to wipe their own asses. What have we got left except putting on the brass knuckles of Chicago politics? Are principles worth dying over, whether it's pacifism in the face of physical aggression, or upholding democracy and allowing it to undo itself and take you all down with it?


*Yes, yes, I know, tribalism. Guess what - we don't have the luxury of not facing the fact that there's a very big 'other' side perfectly willing to lump everyone who doesn't drink their kool-aid into the camp of their enemies. If we try to pretend that this hasn't become an 'us vs. them' issue, we hang seperately.

[blahface]

Why do voting machines need to be touch screen? Would it be that much harder for the voter if a mouse was used instead? I'm sure it would be a lot cheaper.

Also, I wouldn't rule out that Angle voters would just make this up so they could cry that the election was fixed in case they lose. A lot of crazies on the right say that Acorn rigged the election for Obama. I also have a hard time believing that the electronic voting machines would be rigged for a Democrat unless it was a Blue Dog.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Why do voting machines need to be touch screen. Would it be that much harder for the voter if a mouse was used instead? I'm sure it would be a lot cheaper.

Probably, but it's easy for any random asshole to sabotage and disable the machine by cutting the mouse's cord. I guess you could use an integrated trackball, but I think the worry is that it's not as intuitive for the section of the voting public (decrepit old farts) as is 'touch the screen'.

Then again, Florida, hanging chads... I'm inclined to think anything more complicated than 'pull the lever' might be too unintuitive for said decrepit old farts. Ideally, you could have a system where a completely neutral and impartial observer to the proceedings (think 'foreign') would be on-hand everywhere to assist people with the voting machines if they were having trouble. I think you can actually get an election official (of your political party of choice, so long as it's Democrats of Republitards) to help you if you're willing to admit you can't use the machine, but pride, I suspect, prevents a lot of people from so doing.

[General Zod]

Why do voting machines need to be touch screen? Would it be that much harder for the voter if a mouse was used instead? I'm sure it would be a lot cheaper.

Touch-screens are much more intuitive than mice, and a lot of regular voters are senior citizens.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

You don't even need touch screens, ATMs have done just fine for decades with nothing more than a row of buttons on each side of the screen. Why can't voting machines have that?

[ShadowDragon8685]

You don't even need touch screens, ATMs have done just fine for decades with nothing more than a row of buttons on each side of the screen. Why can't voting machines have that?

Um........

*Scratches head*

You know, damnit, I can't think of any reason not to do that. And chances are the decrepit old fart demographic wasn't quite so decrepit or old when ATMs were new, and consequently already understand how to use that sort of system.

Terrifyingly, I think you're right. The better voting machine might just be an old green-characters dot-matrix screen with buttons by the sides. It would be very, very hard to bollocks that up.

(Or, you know, some kind of modern screen with an aesthetic character to emulate an old green screen.)

[edit]Hell, my voting place uses plastic cards in the machines anyway, so it would be more or less exactly like using an ATM except you don't keep the card when you're done!

[General Zod]

You don't even need touch screens, ATMs have done just fine for decades with nothing more than a row of buttons on each side of the screen. Why can't voting machines have that?

I'd wager touchscreens offer more flexibility in design when you have lots of issues or candidates to vote for, but without knowing more specifics who knows?

[Alyeska]

Alyeska, you make some good points about fraud begetting fraud. But you still haven't addressed the fact that if not perpetrating fraud results in fundietarded morons getting into office, the country, its people, will be materially harmed by doing so - bodily harmed, in fact.

I have addressed this fact. I have pointed out that fraud will make things WORSE. You take the good with the bad. We accept our current criminal justice system. It is designed to benefit the innocent. Meaning we would rather let guilty people go free than put innocent people in jail/prison. That is the intent to the system.

Yes, bad political candidates will cause harm. Fradulent processes will make things worse. Instead of having bad AND good, you will get mostly bad. A clean system will be a mix of good and bad. A dirty fradulent system will perpetuate itself and become progressively worse.

Can you really say the ends justify the means in allowing a population of lunatics, morons, kool-aid drinkers and reactionary, hate-filled bigots to elect in a cabal of corporate cock-worshipping sell-outs who're glad to see the people they were supposedly elected to serve dying in the streets if it means protecting the profits of the insurance 'industry', bible-thumping hatemongers and chicken-hawk warmongers who get their cocks hard by sending off scores of our country's young men to die killing brown people?

Pot calling the kettle black. YOU are advocating the ends justify the means. Fradulent elections (means) justify good election results (ends). I am not advocating ends justify the means. Ends Justify the Means is essentialy the argument that doing bad to get good is fundamentally OK. I am advocating a clean process. It is not the same thing.

I can't say that to be so any more. We're living the ends, and frankly the idea of the ends continuing to go the way they're going scares the shit out of me, not the least because I know it'll (literally) be the death of me someday.

We're looking at the failure case for our system of democracy. It's not producing outcomes remotely in-line with the goals of protecting the American people, it's producing outcomes protecting the interests of corporations, producing outcomes supporting the goals of reactionary and bigoted, hate-filled elements of society. It is breaking down, in part because the other side* is perfectly willing to resort to the very tactics you say are not worth resorting to!

Democracy isn't about whats right. Its about mob-rule. Get the stars out of your head. You work to improve things by changing the opinions of the people. You can't subvert the system because the system will turn it around and use it against you.

[Ryan Thunder]

You just need a wheel and two buttons for selecting candidates, and letters/numbers so people can enter their name and what not--hell, just use a regular keyboard. It's not bloody rocket science.

[General Zod]

You just need a wheel and two buttons for selecting candidates, and letters/numbers so people can enter their name and what not--hell, just use a regular keyboard. It's not bloody rocket science.

They're more prone to wearing down and breaking though. Ever use a computer in a public library and get one with stuck keys or mice that don't quite work properly?

[Ryan Thunder]

You just need a wheel and two buttons for selecting candidates, and letters/numbers so people can enter their name and what not--hell, just use a regular keyboard. It's not bloody rocket science.

They're more prone to wearing down and breaking though. Ever use a computer in a public library and get one with stuck keys or mice that don't quite work properly?

I have encountered a broken touchscreen before. Lasted me about a year, though it was a cheap device.

[Mayabird]

Why should we even have voting machines, considering how easily they're rigged (and have been for years - remember all the stuff about Diebold?) and how they don't leave a paper trail for confirmations? I'd love for everyone in the U.S. to adopt the wonderful mail-in systems that Washington and Oregon have. Vote on your own time (researching all the candidates as you want to, and you don't have to wear pants while doing it; I didn't), mail it in, keep a receipt, and don't have to deal with getting a Tuesday off (what's with not having a national holiday on Election Day, anyway) to stand in line for several hours and hope that nothing *totally unsuspiciously* happens at the polling place, which is probably a freaking church anyway (like mine is).

It's a bit more psychically exhausting when you realize that you might actually wind up governed by them.

Even I have greater respect for your countrymen than that. I can't imagine the serious voter who would intentionally vote for an O'Donnell, or an Angle.

Oh please. We've elected such luminaries as Michele Bachmann already. There will be Tea Party candidates elected to public office this election.

[General Zod]

Why should we even have voting machines, considering how easily they're rigged (and have been for years - remember all the stuff about Diebold?) and how they don't leave a paper trail for confirmations? I'd love for everyone in the U.S. to adopt the wonderful mail-in systems that Washington and Oregon have. Vote on your own time (researching all the candidates as you want to, and you don't have to wear pants while doing it; I didn't), mail it in, keep a receipt, and don't have to deal with getting a Tuesday off (what's with not having a national holiday on Election Day, anyway) to stand in line for several hours and hope that nothing *totally unsuspiciously* happens at the polling place, which is probably a freaking church anyway (like mine is).

Presumably to cut down on paper use to be more environmentally friendly. I do like mail-in ballots though, did my voting this year via one.

[Stravo]

I find it unsurprising yet still disgusting that people here are advocating voter fraud to support "their" agenda yet if these were diebold machines prechecking tea party candidates there would be screeching and shit flinging all over that activity. Defrauding Americans of the voting rights that others have fought and died for is OK as long as it's your kind of people it seems.

That's wrong no matter how you cut it. It's easy to argue for shit like that when you're on the winning end of the fraud but if you lived through Florida 2000 and the judicial appointment of one of the worst presidents in American history you should be ashamed for wanting it to go the other way.

[Alyeska]

I find it unsurprising yet still disgusting that people here are advocating voter fraud to support "their" agenda yet if these were diebold machines prechecking tea party candidates there would be screeching and shit flinging all over that activity. Defrauding Americans of the voting rights that others have fought and died for is OK as long as it's your kind of people it seems.

That's wrong no matter how you cut it. It's easy to argue for shit like that when you're on the winning end of the fraud but if you lived through Florida 2000 and the judicial appointment of one of the worst presidents in American history you should be ashamed for wanting it to go the other way.

Hear hear. I am stupified to see people supporting this shit. Can they not comprehend how utterly wrong this is?

[Ryan Thunder]

The end justifies the means--but that doesn't you can do just anything. Literally, the end provides justification for what means can be employed to achieve it.

But anyway, I wouldn't advocate subverting the voting process like that because it'd come back to bite you in the ass at some point. Not because of some kind of bizarre loyalty to the notion of democracy itself.

[General Zod]

The end justifies the means--but even that doesn't come without limits on what's a reasonable means to that end.

There's no reason to be hypocritical about it though. If you're going to say the people shouldn't be trusted with making decisions, fine. But don't go rigging elections and calling it something it isn't.

[Simon_Jester]

It's a bit more psychically exhausting when you realize that you might actually wind up governed by them.

Even I have greater respect for your countrymen than that.

And as you mentioned, you don't live here.

I can't imagine the serious voter who would intentionally vote for an O'Donnell, or an Angle.

Me neither. It's the ones who regard doing so as a religious duty, or who have been propagandized until they'd vote for a bag of shredded lettuce if it was labeled with the right slogans, who worry me...

I find it unsurprising yet still disgusting that people here are advocating voter fraud to support "their" agenda yet if these were diebold machines prechecking tea party candidates there would be screeching and shit flinging all over that activity. Defrauding Americans of the voting rights that others have fought and died for is OK as long as it's your kind of people it seems.

If I had to choose one party or the other to benefit from election fraud, I know which one I would choose. If the option of no fraud at all arises, I would so very much prefer that.

I think much of the "a little fraud for a good cause" stuff is coming about because of the perception that Tea Partiers (and their less-extreme comrades) are already doing things like this: intimidating voters, occasionally beating up political activists, sabotaging organizations that try to register voters not on their side, things like that.

If we have to choose between a system in which a fraudulent election favors people who will predictably harm the country, and a system in which a fraudulent election favors people who will not (or at will do LESS harm)... I can sort of understand the temptation. If the horse has well and truly left the barn, insisting that the door be properly locked is less appealing.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I have addressed this fact. I have pointed out that fraud will make things WORSE. You take the good with the bad. We accept our current criminal justice system. It is designed to benefit the innocent. Meaning we would rather let guilty people go free than put innocent people in jail/prison. That is the intent to the system.

Yes, bad political candidates will cause harm. Fradulent processes will make things worse. Instead of having bad AND good, you will get mostly bad. A clean system will be a mix of good and bad. A dirty fradulent system will perpetuate itself and become progressively worse.

I'm not seeing a lot of good - I am seeing a lot of bad, however. One might even surmise that the system has already broken to the level you suggest, and the only way to continue on is to get down in the gutter with a knife and a gun ourselves.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Pardon me, I mistyped. I meant to ask if you can say the means justify the ends.

YOU are advocating the ends justify the means. Fradulent elections (means) justify good election results (ends). I am not advocating ends justify the means. Ends Justify the Means is essentialy the argument that doing bad to get good is fundamentally OK. I am advocating a clean process. It is not the same thing.

Fundamentally, no, ends justifying the means is not okay. However, I think it's equally bad to say that it is categorically not-okay. Sometimes the ends have to justify the means, or else your own unwillingness to do what must be done will result in someone else doing unto you.

Democracy isn't about whats right. Its about mob-rule.

Then why is it worth standing up for, if it's not about what's right? Why is it worth so protecting if it is, in fact, mob rule, which I think we can all agree is a bad thing. Mob Rule, in this country, undoes every progressive action undertaken pretty much in the last two centuries. Mob Rule sees homosexual people treated like second class (or worse) citizens. Mob Rule sees minorities discriminated against. Mob Rule sees troglodytes like Joe Arpaio elected to administer justice from the blunt end of a billy-club.

If that is democracy, then fuck democracy, let's find a King or something. That's as ideologically pure as a crackhouse whore is biologically pure, that's not worth standing up to defend, not worth dying to protect. I can't believe democracy is mob rule.

Get the stars out of your head. You work to improve things by changing the opinions of the people. You can't subvert the system because the system will turn it around and use it against you.

Some people won't be swayed. Some people don't want to be swayed, and some people are so full of righteousness that they consider it to be mandated by a higher power for them to do the things they do. Those kinds of people are a clear and present danger to the American society, a clear and present danger to me in particular, a clear and present danger to themselves and others.

Frankly, if standing up for democracy means standing by while those people stick a shiv in the metaphorical gut of the country and twist it, then maybe democracy isn't worth standing up for. Especially as has been said that that camp is all-too-willing to perpetrate the very frauds you say are abominable.

Why should we even have voting machines, considering how easily they're rigged (and have been for years - remember all the stuff about Diebold?) and how they don't leave a paper trail for confirmations? I'd love for everyone in the U.S. to adopt the wonderful mail-in systems that Washington and Oregon have. Vote on your own time (researching all the candidates as you want to, and you don't have to wear pants while doing it; I didn't), mail it in, keep a receipt, and don't have to deal with getting a Tuesday off (what's with not having a national holiday on Election Day, anyway) to stand in line for several hours and hope that nothing *totally unsuspiciously* happens at the polling place, which is probably a freaking church anyway (like mine is).

That sounds like a phenomenal idea! It would let everybody who is intimidated away from going to a polling place, or who can't get off work in time to go vote, vote!

And that's why it'll never happen on a widespread scale (at least, not in our lifetimes), because the people who are intimidated away from polling places and who can't get off work are overwhelmingly Democrat voters.

Oh please. We've elected such luminaries as Michele Bachmann already. There will be Tea Party candidates elected to public office this election.

If there is any luck, the public will see them for the lunatic asylum inmates they ought to be and promptly railroad them right the hell out of office next chance. Of course, the question is whether the damage they'll do to Tea Party credibility will outstrip the damage they do to the country in that time-span... I am not optimistic. A break-even is about the best I think we can hope for, trading a complete and total discrediting for a clusterfuck.

I find it unsurprising yet still disgusting that people here are advocating voter fraud to support "their" agenda yet if these were diebold machines prechecking tea party candidates there would be screeching and shit flinging all over that activity. Defrauding Americans of the voting rights that others have fought and died for is OK as long as it's your kind of people it seems.

That's wrong no matter how you cut it. It's easy to argue for shit like that when you're on the winning end of the fraud but if you lived through Florida 2000 and the judicial appointment of one of the worst presidents in American history you should be ashamed for wanting it to go the other way.

Hear hear. I am stupified to see people supporting this shit. Can they not comprehend how utterly wrong this is?

Oh yes, I can. It's absolutely, utterly wrong. The important question in this case is whether it's worth perpetrating a wrong so utter in order to prevent the plethora of wrongs that would otherwise occur, and maybe revert some of those which have come before.

I don't think anybody would say that annihilating Hiroshima and Nagisaki was a morally right thing to do, but a great many people who can admit that will also say that it was the lesser of evils that were faced at that time - nuking a couple of cities, or the meat-grinder of carnage that would have resulted had we been forced to attempt a conventional invasion of Japan.


And with this, the question is whether you think allowing the present insanity to proceed forthwith is worth protecting the integrity of an already-compromised system of government, or not.

I won't say it's the right thing to do, to rig an election or otherwise perpetrate some form of injustice upon the democratic system if it is what I was raised to believe what it is. But I begin to seriously question whether it wouldn't be the lesser of evils at this point.

On the other hand, if it is just mob rule then fuck it, fuck it up the ass with a spiked dildo.

]If I had to choose one party or the other to benefit from election fraud, I know which one I would choose. If the option of no fraud at all arises, I would so very much prefer that.

I think much of the "a little fraud for a good cause" stuff is coming about because of the perception that Tea Partiers (and their less-extreme comrades) are already doing things like this: intimidating voters, occasionally beating up political activists, sabotaging organizations that try to register voters not on their side, things like that.

If we have to choose between a system in which a fraudulent election favors people who will predictably harm the country, and a system in which a fraudulent election favors people who will not (or at will do LESS harm)... I can sort of understand the temptation. If the horse has well and truly left the barn, insisting that the door be properly locked is less appealing.

Thank you for articulating this. This is what I've been trying to say.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, SD, I don't agree with that perception. I don't think the system is broken enough that trying to break it on both sides of the line is justified. Not by a long shot.

But I can at least understand the temptation. The urge to say "would it really be that bad to effectively disenfranchise the looniest 10% of the population so that the rest of us can get on with our lives?"

The problem is that saying that never ends well. Period.

[Ryan Thunder]

The end justifies the means--but even that doesn't come without limits on what's a reasonable means to that end.

There's no reason to be hypocritical about it though. If you're going to say the people shouldn't be trusted with making decisions, fine. But don't go rigging elections and calling it something it isn't.

I'd actually much rather educate them to the point where they can be trusted with making decisions. But maybe that's just a pipe dream...

[ShadowDragon8685]

Well, SD, I don't agree with that perception. I don't think the system is broken enough that trying to break it on both sides of the line is justified. Not by a long shot.

I'm not sure it is, either. I'm saying that if it is, then it might be worth it.

And I'm saying that we're staring down the barrel of "broken enough," and the light at the end of the tunnel has just been switched off to save power. (Or it's actually a train, depending on where you are in society.)

But I can at least understand the temptation. The urge to say "would it really be that bad to effectively disenfranchise the looniest 10% of the population so that the rest of us can get on with our lives?"

The problem is that saying that never ends well. Period.

I agree.

But I'm starting to wonder where is the line when saying it ends less well than letting the loons have their way.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I'd actually much rather educate them to the point where they can be trusted with making decisions. But maybe that's just a pipe dream...

Education is no predictor of sanity. Last night whilst watching Special Victims Unit, I had the misfortune to sit through a television advert in which they got an actual medical doctor, supposedly a community doctor, to get up on television and punt against the guy who was for healthcare reform, spouting lines about "putting the government between people and their doctors."

As opposed to 'putting a profit-motivated bureaucrat between people and their doctors', or failing that 'putting a person's income status between them and their doctor'. I yelled at the television, stopped just short of flinging the remote control at it, and the only reason I wasn't writing the bitch a castigating letter was because the commercial ended before I could write down her name to Google her.

I mean, really. If you can't count on a medical doctor to be educated to the point where they can be trusted with making decisions, then I don't think any amount of education is sufficient, and the quality we're looking for is something else.

[Ryan Thunder]

Hmm. Maybe I ought to modify 'educate' to 'brainwash'.