You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #133: Nederland [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
Imajika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-08-03 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #91
133. Nederland
Good, fair post.

"However, I think this will be much more than a nuisance story to Diebold."

We will see. You could be right. But couldn't it be that Diebold just says, "Hey, that isn't even the code we were actually using in the real voting machines." I mean, it just seems to me that we are actually far, far away from having a significant provable story.

"Its clear that Diebold made no attempt to follow even the most fundamental rule of security systems"

But are we really sure about that yet?

"I believe that demonstrating the fundamental flaws of the Diebold system will spur important changes in the law regarding testing and mandating paper audit trails."

I agree with this.

"Furthermore, I am a bit more convinced of the importance of this story than you are."

Maybe. I think this is an important issue. Here are just two of my problems. One - the near consensus on this forum that the voting machines are already corrupted and widespread cheating has already been occuring. There is just not any real proof of this and it sounds silly to the average American hearing those of us on the left running around making these claims. Two - my suspicion that those who believe that the voting machines are rigged will say and release anything now to try to further that notion without any real supporting evidence. This has the effect of making those who may be involved with the issue in the future look like conspiracy theorists and may well leave average Americans with the impression that only "nuts" complain about the voting machines.

"Sure, Bev and other are overhyping this, but I believe that is merely the natural result of working so hard and so long on something. People need to feel that they are making a difference and making an important contribution. Indeed, if we see the changes that I hope to see, they are."

Good point. Were I involved with something that I spent so much time on and was extremely important to me perhaps I might even act in a similar way. I think I would have avoided discussions of being "dissappeared", but your analysis is a good one.

Lastly, I know Bev and her team have worked hard. I have a tendency to be much harder on my side. I guess I expect more. I suspect in this case I have been overly critical. But hey, isn't a little dissent a good thing?

Imajika



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC