Severe conflict of interest?

[Gargamel]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/liberal-critics-worry-about-romney-connection-to-voting-machines-in-ohio/2012/10/24/827f16e4-1ded-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_story.html

Sum it up, Romney has interest in the company that runs voting machines in key locations in Ohio. Another article I read (lost the link), stated his son has deep financial ties with HART.

For democracy's sake, shouldnt these machines be ruled out and a manual system be used? At least for just this election?

[August]

For democracy's sake, shouldnt these machines be ruled out and a manual system be used? At least for just this election?


They should be ruled out permanently imo. Votes need to be recorded in a more permanent way. With manual ballot voting I check a box next to the name of my chosen candidate on a piece of paper with an indelible ink marker. Anyone who looks at that ballot will see the mark that I made. Very difficult to spoof that.

With electronic voting however there is a separation between the button a voter pushes and how his vote is eventually recorded. There are no boxes of ballots that can be recounted and checked just database entries that are far more easily manipulated.

I see their adoption as perilous for my country.

[Onkel Neal]

I agree with you, voting does not need to be fly by wire, I think each vote should be manual, with a thumbprint attached. :up:

[Catfish]

Ballot machines have been used in Germany and the US for cheating before - they really have to be banned.

Regarding thumbprints this is good idea, however if you can find out who voted for whom, this is not the idea of a (secret) ballot (?) - may have misunderstood though.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Rilder]

In my opinion its not just the ballot machines that need work in regards to voting.

Electoral college where you don't actually vote for a candidate just someone who might (Not required by law) vote for your candidate. Gerrymandering. A general voting system that leads to a two party system where half the people are voting against a candidate instead of for a candidate. (See: all the people who are voting for Romney solely because they don't like Obama)

Oh and not to mention just the absolutely terrible choices of politicians you have in general.

[Catfish]

Electoral college where you don't actually vote for a candidate just someone who might (Not required by law) vote for your candidate. Gerrymandering.
Right that. Indirect influence, but no 'voting' and no real democracy - however you define that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEiMYaQcAAU

A general voting system that leads to a two party system where half the people are voting against a candidate instead of for a candidate. (See: all the people who are voting for Romney solely because they don't like Obama)
Yes, same here. Two sides of one coin, but no real alternative :nope:

Oh and not to mention just the absolutely terrible choices of politicians you have in general.

Well this sums it up pretty well :up:
But i like August's quote "Public business must always be done by somebody. It will be done by somebody or other. If wise men decline, others will not; if honest men refuse it, others will not." - John Adams

Problem is no one with a decent mind and common sense would like to do such 'work' and be a politician. :hmm2:

[Skybird]

Ballot machines have been used in Germany

Wooot...? :stare: Not to my knowledge, but I could have missed it. But at least not in national elections, of that I'm certain. The Constitutional High Court ruled that using them would be imaginable only under extremely rigid and tight special rules, else their use would be against the Basic Law. These rules as far as I know have not been formed out into legislation in Germany.

You maybe mistake this with that there is one German company producing such machines for the international market.

P.S. Did some Googling and you could be right, I found a message saying that "voting machines used in German elections" have been demonstrated by the Chaos Computer Club to be vulnerable to manipulation. But they did not say which elections that were. I refuse to go voting - did so only on two communal referendums on local issues - , so procedures there may have changed more drastically than I am aware of. But as far as I believed to know it still is the old ink-and-paper thing over here.

[Skybird]

P.P.S. German Wikipedia lists as only exmaple for a machine used in German elections, elections for mayor in one city. While the Bundestag had rushed a law pushing for machines in 2005 or 2006, the Constitutional High Court has ruled this law anti-constitutional in 2009, since then they are banned in Germany. German experts and engineers said that in principle it is impossible to make machines totally safe against manipulation, and that any voting machine always can be manipulated, if you really want to do that. There is no known way to immunize them completely. Well, who wants to argue with Germangineers...? :D

[Platapus]

I really don't like the electronic voting machines.

The primary reason is that it is impossible to do any kind of recount/vote verification using an electronic machine.

All I can do is ask the machine to reprint the same report. Having two exact copies of a report does not indicate whether the report is accurate. It just demonstrates that the machine is capable of accurately reproducing any error multiple times.

With the paper ballots I can, and have, sat down with a team and manually recounted ballots. It serves as an accurate, but unwieldy permanent record of how the voting went.

As long as the state keeps the cast ballots (usually several years), recounts can be made.

Newer technology is not always an improvement. Some problems can and should be accomplished with older and more stable technology. In my opinion, voting is one of them.

One thing I do not agree with concerning paper/physical ballots is the concept of voting officials trying to determine voter intent (aka hanging chads).

Unless the ballot is clearly marked/punched/filled out, the ballot should not be counted. Election officials should not be put in a position of trying to interpret voter intention. :nope:

[Platapus]

Sum it up, Romney has interest in the company that runs voting machines in key locations in Ohio.

Honestly, I am not seeing a conflict of interest here.

Now if Romney were personally programming/maintaining/operating the machines I could see.

If Romney were in some official capacity and somehow influencing the states to purchase this specific machine than I could see CoI. But Romney does not have any official capacity.

But just having a financial interest in a company? I don't see it.

Even if Romney owned the company all by himself, I would not see a conflict of interest. These machines undergo a lot of testing and code verification. Any monkey-business is most likely at the local end than the manufacturing end.

[August]

But i like August's quote "Public business must always be done by somebody. It will be done by somebody or other. If wise men decline, others will not; if honest men refuse it, others will not." - John Adams

Problem is no one with a decent mind and common sense would like to do such 'work' and be a politician. :hmm2:

Yep and that, imo, is the single biggest threat to civilization our nations face. When the wise and honest are dissuaded from public service then corruption and tyranny will soon follow.

[Platapus]

Yep and that, imo, is the single biggest threat to civilization our nations face. When the wise and honest are dissuaded from public service then corruption and tyranny will soon follow.

So how can we 'swad good people to run for office?

Dedication to public service looks good on a T-shirt, but what about the opinion that if you want to attract good quality people you have to pay compatible salaries?

Unfortunately, salaries only work one way.

Low salaries will only keep the "wise and honest" away
High salaries will not keep the "foolish and dishonest" away.

If it were an easy problem to solve, it would not be a problem.

The key, getting up on my ole creakin soapbox, rests with the citizens. If they continue to elect/re-elect candidates based on the letter after their name, this problem will only continue.

Unfortunately, few citizens are willing to conduct the research to find out about the character of the candidate.

Character, it appears, is defined by a letter after your name. :/\\!!:/\\!!:/\\!!

After all, would a political party lie to me just to get their candidate elected???? That would be wrong.

[Sailor Steve]

Regarding thumbprints this is good idea, however if you can find out who voted for whom, this is not the idea of a (secret) ballot (?) - may have misunderstood though.
A good point. Perhaps a checklist at the voting place, with your name and a box for a thumbprint. That way everyone who voted would be accounted for, but the ballot would still be secret.

[August]

So how can we 'swad good people to run for office?

Well for one thing we can start rejecting the idea that the political game is rigged beyond repair and that avoiding public service is the "smart" thing to do.