• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Voting Machine Catch-22

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's always been a bit of a hole in the law when it comes to requirements for 'standing' to sue.

There are issues where the law or constitution are blatantly ignored, but are difficult to have addressed by courts over standing.

You don't want courts cluttered with lawsuits by every person who disagrees with a policy, but I'd think some broadening to allow 'public interest' lawsuits might help.

I'm not sure how to define who can sue for what under that, though. In theory, the elected officials already represent the 'public interest' - but we know they don't always.
 
That is a tough one.

Who would be in standing?

I suppose the Democrat Party could file suit or something or a candidate.
 
ProfJohn said:
That is a tough one.

Who would be in standing?

I suppose the Democrat Party could file suit or something or a candidate.
Click to expand...

Nobody has standing, because the only evidence is produced by the computerized voting system, and the totals are verifiable only by the computerized voting system.

"Recount? Sure. "

clickety clickety click... tap, tap... enter.

"still says the same thing..."
 
From the article. Looks like Texas was just following the lead.

A national pattern
Hall told Ars that the Texas outcome has been mirrored across the country. Courts have been reluctant to second-guess the administrative decisions of the elected branches of government. In 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a challenge to California's use of DRE voting machines, holding that the choice of machines was at the discretion of state officials there. The Eleventh Circuit used similar reasoning to reject a challenge to Florida's use of DRE machines in 2006. The Texas Supreme Court cited both decisions in its ruling on Friday.
Click to expand...

I would feel more comfortable with an original paper trail.
 
The perfect system would be one where you use a touch screen to fill out the ballot and then it would print out a pre-printed ballot.

You then check your ballot for accuracy.

Then you walk over and feed it into the counting machine.

Win for everyone!
 
I wonder what happens if one of the electronic machine's hard drives die in the middle of voting? As much as I love technology, I think I'd still prefer the paper method and deal with possible human counting errors than programming errors.
 
while i love technology and i am fascinated with new devices. I do not think we are ready to use machine vetoing yet.

seems its to easy to tamper with and not always 100% correct. even though it should be..
 
Paper ballots and optical scanners are the only way to go. They offer the speed and instantaneous tallying of automation with an easily manually counted paper record.
 
Either go to a Scantron system like ACT uses (is there such a high error rate there vs. the current system?), or go to a double or triple redundant fully electronic secured system that gives a paper trail to each voter and to the local voting location. No one can b1tch then.

For something mastered by banks for like 2 decades now, this shouldn't be that hard....
 
One of the more interesting aspects of it all is the Texas SCOTUS citing federal rulings, rulings that merely stated the whole thing was a States' Rights issue.

"The Feds say we can do what we want, so we will, and citizens have no standing to say otherwise."

The whole thing represents airtight circular logic.
 
Jhhnn said:
One of the more interesting aspects of it all is the Texas SCOTUS citing federal rulings, rulings that merely stated the whole thing was a States' Rights issue.

"The Feds say we can do what we want, so we will, and citizens have no standing to say otherwise."

The whole thing represents airtight circular logic.
Click to expand...
I don't think you know what circular logic means.
 
Howard said:
I don't think you know what circular logic means.
Click to expand...

Heh. Citizens are alarmed by potential problems with electronic voting, the lack of ability to confirm the accuracy of machines in use, file suit in Federal Court. Federal Courts turn them away, basically citing States' Rights. Citizens sue in State Court, whereupon the State Court rules that the citizens have no standing, based on the federal ruling...

That is circular, as is the whole bit about being unable to show harm because the voting machines in question are the only source that could yield evidence of harm to allow standing, which they won't, obviously.

Circles within circles. Catch-22.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top