Liberal Forum

razoo » 08 Aug 2023, 8:20 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 8:20 am

Insurrection
noun

1. a violent uprising against an authority or government = Like what Trump and his inner circle incited

Please seat yourself.



I like the very things you hate.

Vegas » 08 Aug 2023, 9:13 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 9:13 am

Razoo, like a good little dim cultist, doesn't answer questions. LOL.

If he does, please come get me. I like to witness history in the making.

ROG62 » 08 Aug 2023, 9:22 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 9:22 am

of course liberals want them to vote...it doesn't mean they're right...some 16yos shouldn't be driving either...

razoo » 08 Aug 2023, 8:04 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 8:04 am

Paperless Electronic VotingA bedrock of democracy is ensuring that every vote counts. There needs to be a transparent system of vote counting so that people can trust that their vote is counted as they cast it. Paperless electronic voting on touch screen machines does not provide confidence to ensure votes are counted the way voters intend. 

The software on which votes are counted is protected as a corporate trade secret, and the software is so complex that if malicious code was embedded, no analysis could discover it.

Further, because there is no voter verified paper record, it is not possible to audit the electronic vote for accuracy, nor is it possible to conduct an independent recount. This is a grotesquely designed, over-complicated, expensive system fraught with the potential for mistakes and undetected fraud. We should not trust the future of our nation to such malleable technology.

On July 23, 2003, the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute reviewed the electronic voting system in Maryland and found that it had security far below even the most minimal security standards.

In the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2004,  four top computer scientists from the University of California, Johns Hopkins University, and Rice University similarly critiqued Diebold’s voting system: "We found significant security flaws: voters can trivially cast multiple ballots with no built-in traceability, administrative functions can be performed by regular voters, and the threats posed by insiders such as poll workers, software developers, and janitors is even greater.

Based on our analysis of the development environment, including change logs and comments, we believe that an appropriate level of programming discipline for a project such as this was not maintained. In fact, there appears to have been little quality control in the process.

"…The model where individual vendors write proprietary code to run our elections appears to be unreliable, and if we do not change the process of designing our voting systems, we will have no confidence that our election results will reflect the will of the electorate."

Computers are inherently subject to programming error, equipment malfunction, and malicious tampering. If we are to ensure fair and honest elections, and retain voter confidence in our democratic process, we need to ensure that there are no such questions.

Therefore, it is crucial that any computerized voting system provide a voter-verifiable paper audit trail and that random audits of electronic votes be conducted on Election Day. Paperless electronic voting machines make it impossible to safeguard the integrity of our vote - thereby threatening the very foundation of our democracy.

Moreover, the seller of the machines, the Diebold Corporation, is a supplier of money to one of the major party candidates, George W. Bush. The CEO and top officers of Diebold are major contributors to the Bush campaign. A corporation with vested political interests should not have control over the votes of the populace.

Bruce » 08 Aug 2023, 1:51 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 1:51 pm

Did you know out west in some solid red states they drive at 14?

And until modern times every former Confederate state had an age of consent at 16 and some as low as 14?

I’m saying it’s a very bad idea, but a state could let 14 year olds vote.

Our 1790 Constitution says states run federal elections.

Got any problems with that?

Would you like the Federal Government to run them?

My, my, my.

The history books tell us the Founders were Deists.

Believers in a Supreme Architect of the Universe!

Thomas Jefferson even made his own New Testament!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

Guess how long it would take to convert America into a very righteous nation indeed?

The folks that wrote the first constitution would get a do over.

Pretty Young Deist Schoolteacher

https://youtu.be/_-txHiCtCIg

RedheadedStranger » 08 Aug 2023, 9:59 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 9:59 am

Progressive leftists want 16 year olds to vote because their support can be bought with free pizza and concert tickets.

​​​​​​

DeezerShoove » 08 Aug 2023, 11:13 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 11:13 am

Like taking over areas of a city.

razoo » 08 Aug 2023, 8:04 am » wrote: ↑

08 Aug 2023, 8:04 am

Paperless Electronic VotingA bedrock of democracy is ensuring that every vote counts. There needs to be a transparent system of vote counting so that people can trust that their vote is counted as they cast it. Paperless electronic voting on touch screen machines does not provide confidence to ensure votes are counted the way voters intend. 

The software on which votes are counted is protected as a corporate trade secret, and the software is so complex that if malicious code was embedded, no analysis could discover it.

Further, because there is no voter verified paper record, it is not possible to audit the electronic vote for accuracy, nor is it possible to conduct an independent recount. This is a grotesquely designed, over-complicated, expensive system fraught with the potential for mistakes and undetected fraud. We should not trust the future of our nation to such malleable technology.

On July 23, 2003, the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute reviewed the electronic voting system in Maryland and found that it had security far below even the most minimal security standards.

In the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2004,  four top computer scientists from the University of California, Johns Hopkins University, and Rice University similarly critiqued Diebold’s voting system: "We found significant security flaws: voters can trivially cast multiple ballots with no built-in traceability, administrative functions can be performed by regular voters, and the threats posed by insiders such as poll workers, software developers, and janitors is even greater.

Based on our analysis of the development environment, including change logs and comments, we believe that an appropriate level of programming discipline for a project such as this was not maintained. In fact, there appears to have been little quality control in the process.

"…The model where individual vendors write proprietary code to run our elections appears to be unreliable, and if we do not change the process of designing our voting systems, we will have no confidence that our election results will reflect the will of the electorate."

Computers are inherently subject to programming error, equipment malfunction, and malicious tampering. If we are to ensure fair and honest elections, and retain voter confidence in our democratic process, we need to ensure that there are no such questions.

Therefore, it is crucial that any computerized voting system provide a voter-verifiable paper audit trail and that random audits of electronic votes be conducted on Election Day. Paperless electronic voting machines make it impossible to safeguard the integrity of our vote - thereby threatening the very foundation of our democracy.

Moreover, the seller of the machines, the Diebold Corporation, is a supplier of money to one of the major party candidates, George W. Bush. The CEO and top officers of Diebold are major contributors to the Bush campaign. A corporation with vested political interests should not have control over the votes of the populace.