Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Fun with Public Officials and Public Databases

By jjazz in Technology
Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 02:01:01 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood is lying, and I can prove it.


After the State of Florida was successfully sued for the release of the felon voter purge list earlier this year, it turned out that the list contained almost no Hispanics. In Cuban-dominated Florida, that means a lot of likely Republican voters were left off the list. Florida Sec. of State Glenda Hood claimed it was because the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's race data doesn't have a Hispanic category, while the voter data does, fouling a merge/purge of the two necessary to stop felons from voting.

So then how is it I can search for Hispanic inmates? (note "Race" pulldown)

This isn't a home run, since the Department of Corrections is not part of the Department of Law Enforcement, as far as I can tell. Arrest reports (PDF) record race, but the only categories are white, black, indian, and oriental.

But: the Department of Law Enforcement and the Department of Corrections both keep track of the "DC Number" of felons, meaning that if you really wanted to find out who was Hispanic, it would only take one more join. Come to think of it, why not just use the Department of Corrections data?

Oh, wait- you are:

The secretary of state has said it is the responsibility of the supervisors of elections in each of Florida's 67 counties to go through the list provided by the Corrections Department, and to remove the appropriate names from their rolls.

Inmate K52370's race...now you see it, now you don't.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o is lying
o prove it
o successful ly sued
o lot of likely Republican voters were left off the list
o doesn't have a Hispanic category
o search for Hispanic inmates
o Arrest reports
o you are:
o now you see it
o now you don't
o Also by jjazz


Display: Sort:
Fun with Public Officials and Public Databases | 138 comments (91 topical, 47 editorial, 0 hidden)
dilution (3.00 / 2) (#1)
by karb on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 03:22:35 PM EST

In cases like this, the actual technical data flow looks something like this :
  • Senior technical staff who understand the problem -> their management
  • their management -> CEO or pol
  • CEO or pol -> reporter
  • reporter -> normal people and us geeks (and the circle of life continues)

I think this happens a lot when tech stories get reported in the news, especially by non-industry newstypes. It's quite likely that there's a geek somewhere who can tell you, fairly convincingly, (at least from my experience) why what seems easy isn't really.

Unfortunately, they usually aren't allowed to talk to the press. There's probably a good reason for that. "There are hundreds of minor bugs in the voting system??? HUNDREDS OF MINOR BUGS!!!??? MY VOTE ISN"T BEING COUNTED!!" (riots)
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?

Plausible deniability (3.00 / 6) (#5)
by mcc on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 04:08:09 PM EST

Well, it appears Ms. Hood is relaying inaccuracies to the public.

As a public servant it is part of her responsibility to identify and get to the bottom of such inaccuracies when they are relayed to her.

If she isn't lying, then she isn't doing her job.

Pick one.

[ Parent ]

The job that Ms. Hood (none / 2) (#24)
by Empedocles on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 11:44:23 PM EST

did with Orlando speaks much about her.

And what it speaks is not flattering.

---
And I think it's gonna be a long long time
'Till touch down brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home

[ Parent ]

Indeed (none / 3) (#79)
by jmzero on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 04:46:37 PM EST

How to evaluate a politician:

If she isn't lying, then she isn't doing her job.

.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

What's that? (2.50 / 6) (#12)
by meijer on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:03:12 PM EST

These offender databases are really quite interesting for me as an European. (Does any European country have something like this?)

But what is that: Record

A six year old that littered the street? At least they don't show his real name...

"Littering 0-500lb"... (3.00 / 4) (#13)
by gordonjcp on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 05:31:03 PM EST

Seems to me that if you've dropped a quarter ton of something in the street, it's not really littering any more, is it?

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


[ Parent ]
I couldn't find that one.... (3.00 / 4) (#29)
by Blarney on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 02:12:10 AM EST

The session you had going is probably expired by now. But digging for persons aged 0-8 brought some interesting results - a couple convictions of corporate entities, and quite a few entries for adults who for some reason had an odd birthdate listed. My personal favorite was the man under 8 years old, who had facial hair and had been busted for multiple DUIs.

[ Parent ]
Eeep! (none / 0) (#69)
by jd on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 02:06:35 PM EST

That eight year-old got off to a good start! :) Wonder if he gets to have his record wiped when he reaches 21 (again).

[ Parent ]
DC number P23470 ? [nt] (none / 0) (#73)
by Stereo on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 03:01:57 PM EST


kuro5hin - Artes technicae et humaniores, a fossis


[ Parent ]
Hi. (1.00 / 20) (#17)
by Hide Teh Hamster on Wed Jul 21, 2004 at 06:17:23 PM EST

Cubans are either white or mulatto. No mestizos. Fag.


This revitalised kuro5hin thing, it reminds me very much of the new German Weimar Republic. Please don't let the dark cloud of National Socialism descend upon it again.
If you call someone a Fag (none / 2) (#25)
by richarj on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 12:08:17 AM EST

Isn't that flirting?

"if you are uncool, don't worry, K5 is still the place for you!" -- rusty
[ Parent ]
Well, here's the deal. (none / 2) (#34)
by Hide Teh Hamster on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 06:44:06 AM EST

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.


This revitalised kuro5hin thing, it reminds me very much of the new German Weimar Republic. Please don't let the dark cloud of National Socialism descend upon it again.
[ Parent ]
I hear marriage bells! (nt) (none / 1) (#37)
by Ta bu shi da yu on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 09:50:50 AM EST



---
AdTIה"the think tank that didn't".
ה
[ Parent ]
hispanics are gonna take over america (1.20 / 20) (#46)
by o O on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 03:22:30 PM EST

get use to it whitey. pretty soon gringos will be up against the wall.

I notice that you omit one fairly basic fact (2.90 / 11) (#47)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 04:09:24 PM EST

"hispanic" is not a race, it's a category invented by north americans.

Ask a Spaniard what his race is. Ask a Cuban. Ask Brazilian. I'll bet good money that some will say "black" and some will say "white" but none of them will say "hispanic".

Now where did I put that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago!

My ex-roomate (3.00 / 17) (#50)
by spammacus on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 05:17:24 PM EST

is from Mexico city and this was one of our favourite arguments.

I'd say "dude you're white"

he'd say "no, I'm hispanic"

I'd say "dude your name is Catalan and your folks are from Barcelona.  You're white"

He'd say "..., saying 'hispanic' in the states helps me pick up white chicks.  Shut up."

I forgot what my point was.
-- "Asshole, deconstruct thyself." - Mr. Surly
[ Parent ]

basic facts on race (none / 3) (#75)
by scott reynen on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 03:40:24 PM EST

"'hispanic' is not a race, it's a category invented by north americans." whereas the "real" races come from where? all races are cultural inventions. how is "hispanic" any different than "black" or "white"?

[ Parent ]
There are 5 races (none / 0) (#77)
by Wah on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 04:13:59 PM EST

White People, Black People, Brown People, Yellow People, and Blue People.  Each displays certain characteristics is social settings based on the wavelength of light their skin reflects.

Try to keep your shit straight, mmkay?
--
umm, holding, holding...
[ Parent ]

"blue people" is a misnomer. (none / 0) (#120)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 04:51:12 PM EST

They are actually transparent "invisible" people - they just look blue if you have enough alcohol in your system to distort the spectral response of your eyes.

Now where did I put that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago!
[ Parent ]
Not True! Blue People do exist. (none / 0) (#134)
by prolixity on Tue Jul 27, 2004 at 05:30:28 AM EST

One ran for Senate in Montana in 2002 - calling himself Stan Jones.

His Platform

Notice how his official picture is "pre-bluening"

The Blue-man himself!

I would've voted for a blue-skinned candidate.
Bah!
[ Parent ]

Are you sure he wasn't (none / 0) (#135)
by porkchop_d_clown on Tue Jul 27, 2004 at 02:55:56 PM EST

just holding his breath till he got elected?

Now where did I put that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago!
[ Parent ]
That explains (none / 3) (#91)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 08:28:56 PM EST

Why I can't tell the difference between my germanic self and my buddy from Rwanda.

You should seriously consider buying a book on biology and reading it. There is at least as much difference between me and my buddies from Kenya and China as there is between wolves and coyotes - and those are considered different species.

But, in any case, let's assume you're right and race is a cultural myth. Then we had better get right out there and erase that annoying "race" question from all government forms, hadn't we? Oh - and we need to eliminate affirmative action, as well, since that's perpetuating the myth that blacks are different from whites.

Now where did I put that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago!
[ Parent ]

l already had this discussion with you. (none / 2) (#93)
by DavidTC on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 12:02:53 AM EST

here, to be exact.

And what gets me is that you brought up canines last time, and you apparently missed the fact that there being, currently, several Canis species is a) historical, and b) due to (mostly) seperate locations. In other words, saying they are 'considered' seperate species is almost exactly backwards. They are mostly classifed as seperate species, and this classification is widely regarded as incorrect, because there are a few packs of animals that are apparently coyote/wolf hybirds, like the Red Wolf. That page explains some of the confusion going on in biology when you start trying to break animals that can interbreed into seperate species, which is still done because only 'true species' can be protected under the endangered species act. (OTOH, protecting a 'species' that may have only existed for a few decades, and you can get back at any time by throwing coyotes and wolves together, seems rather pointless.)

In short: Canines are not seperate species, it's a bad classification, and there are biologists who have already changed.

And, BTW, I can replace 'wolves' and 'coyotes' with 'Great Danes' and 'Bulldogs', and, hey, those are the same species. Ooo, really good idea to bring up canines. Canis familiaris has insane levels of obvious difference in looks, and yet indisputably is a single species. (Wait, now it's Canis lupus familiaris, since 1993. So now I can say that wolf over there and a bulldog are the same species.)

And, oh, you're just flat out wrong when you bring up the differences between you and your buddies from Kenya and China. Humans are, to quote the link, 'the most genetically homogenous species we know of'.

Genetic traits barely have anything to do with race at all, about 15%, with family variations making up the other 85%. That means that I can grab a dozen guys who look identical to you off the street, and do DNA comparisions on them, you and, your friends, and something like 1/3rd of them (The 85% varies, so half the people will be closer than your friends, and assuming the 15% is complete, and no one is a 'mixed breed' somewhere down the line, so that's 50%-15%.) will have genes that are farther away than your weird looking friends.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

LoL. (none / 0) (#99)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 09:31:50 AM EST

I am well aware of the spectrum of variation among wolves and dogs and foxes. And that's the point. They are different and the differences are not "cultural". Wolves are pack hunters, foxes are solitary. Similarly, tigers and lions can interbreed but exhibit radically different traits.

You're still hung up on the social implications of race and because you despise them you have chosen to deny the reality of race. That's foolish. Closing your eyes to the problem (a problem as fundamental as my rwandan friend's toddler being frightened of me because of my skin color) will not solve it.

Race is not a cultural creation - we can overcome it by using culture but that's not the same thing.

Now where did I put that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago!
[ Parent ]

I didn't mention.... (none / 1) (#100)
by DavidTC on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 10:18:26 AM EST

...foxes in my post. At this point, it's still not know whether or not foxes should be difference species, and, if so, which should be. There are 'foxes' that are nothing more than funny looking wolves, and there are 'foxes' that cannot breed with wolves, but can with other foxes. (This is what happens when you attempt to apply animal classification that assumes a static plant and animal universe to the real one, which evolves.)

However, pretending that has anything to do with humans is dishonest. Geneticly, 85% of our traits (That vary at all.) vary within our 'race', or within the technical term, our subspecies. Meanwhile, about 15% of our traits follow 'racial' lines.

If we were any other species that was currently being looked at today, we not only would not be seperate species, but we wouldn't be classified into subspecies, just like flowers with different colors don't have subspecies, or golden retrievers and labrador retrievers aren't two subspecies. Genetically, we fail any subspecies test, as do we behaviourally. You accused me of bringing politics into biology, but it's you who are bringing cultural conventions in.

The whole 'science has shown, genetically, we're different, but that doesn't matter' is crap. We're not genetically different to any extent. You can predict almost nothing due to someone's race about what genes they have.

And that is ignoring that a) We still have no idea which is nuture and which is nature, so it's stupid to pretend that '15% genetic variation' has anything to do with differences in anything other than obscure features of protein uptake is dishonest to start with. We have no ability to say anything like that.

And b) What we call 'race' doesn't have anything to do with the nearly pointless divide anyway...genetically, australian aboriginies are closer to europeans decended people than african decended people. But australian aboriginies are still 'black people'. And there are three genetically groups of africans who vary more between the groups than they do from some groups of white people. Even if you want to argue that Homo sapien sapien has 'subspecies'(1), which isn't correct, those subspecies are completely unrelated to any person's conception of 'race'.

1) People forget Homo sapiens already have two subspecies, Homo sapien sapien and Homo sapien neanderthalensis. So I guess you're proposing 'subsubspecies'.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

Uh, no, no. (none / 0) (#104)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 10:45:54 AM EST

Okay, you go on pretending that race is learned behavior since you're obviously unwilling to face the facts that (a) many species exhibit the same behavior and (b) dividing humanity into race/nation/tribe/inside/outside/we're cool and your not is the closest thing we have to a universal trait.

On the other hand, I'm unwilling to let you spread the lie that neanderthals are classified as homo sapiens. That's pure bullshit.

There are many who believe that neanderthals and cro magnons interbred into one common species (and I would agree) but neanderthals are not considered a part of the species sapiens they are both older than sapiens and many believe that the two never co-existed in the same place at the same time.

Now where did I put that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago!
[ Parent ]

Strawman (none / 1) (#108)
by DavidTC on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 12:19:24 PM EST

Okay, you go on pretending that race is learned behavior since you're obviously unwilling to face the facts that (a) many species exhibit the same behavior and (b) dividing humanity into race/nation/tribe/inside/outside/we're cool and your not is the closest thing we have to a universal trait.

I didn't say it was a learned behavior anywhere. In fact, I'm not even sure it's a 'bad' behavior. Showing more loyalty to people 'like us' is all fine and dandy. Of course, we should realize that classifying people 'like us' doesn't have anything to do with skin color.

Anyway, I just said that Homo sapiens sapien does not have 'subspecies', in any sense of the word. (And they wouldn't have anything to do with just skin color if they existed.)

On the other hand, I'm unwilling to let you spread the lie that neanderthals are classified as homo sapiens. That's pure bullshit.

There are many who believe that neanderthals and cro magnons interbred into one common species (and I would agree) but neanderthals are not considered a part of the species sapiens they are both older than sapiens and many believe that the two never co-existed in the same place at the same time.

I find your universe interesting. The universe where the species classification is handed down from God and there's no confusion. But by all means, believe a web page that classifies elves and dwarfs. But realize your beliefs makes no sense. If neanderthals and cro magnons interbred into one common species, then they are the same species. It's the possibility that they didn't that leads to the classification as a seperate species.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

And now you're arguing that culture is genetic? (none / 1) (#113)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 03:15:49 PM EST

WTF, dude?

Either race is a cultural construct or not. You can't argue that it's a cultural creation at one point and then turn around and claim that it isn't learned behaviour.

Sonny, you've just fallen off the deep end. Especially if you think the Smithsonian is God. By the way, you might want to check your own cite - it asserts that the claim that the neanderthals are part of homo sapiens is undecided. The Smithsonian link indicates that the term homo sapiens neanderthalensis has been out of favor for 20 years.

Now where did I put that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago!
[ Parent ]

You just hope no one reads the link, don't you? (none / 0) (#130)
by DavidTC on Sun Jul 25, 2004 at 08:16:07 PM EST

And I quote the link you gave:

However, Neanderthals and modern humans (Homo sapiens) are very similar anatomically -- so similar, in fact, that in 1964, it was proposed that Neanderthals are not even a separate species from modern humans, but that the two forms represent two subspecies: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens. This classification was popular through the 1970's and 80's, although many authors today have returned to the previous two-species hypothesis. Either way, Neanderthals represent a very close evolutionary relative of modern humans.

In your universe, this may mean the term is out of favor. In the real world, it is means it is slightly less in favor than it was 25 years ago.

But I'm not falling for your little game, where you nitpick tiny details like that. Even if I was completely wrong about the classification of Neanderthals (Which I'm not), that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the point I was making, that the human concept of 'race' is complete gibberish.

I said dividing humanity into us vs them is possibly not a learned behavior. This doesn't have anything to do with the human concept of race being complete fiction. It's possible race is something we specifically invented to divide when the village got too big to contain all 'us', or it could be a completely seperate idea tacked on from elsewhere.

I do know the idea of us vs. them via race is not genetic, because there are plenty of historic example where there are multiple 'races' living together and us vs. them was on a completely different axis. Religion is a common alternative, as is social standing.

Claiming the idea of race is genetic is like claiming that losing weight to get in a bikini is genetic...no, attracting a mate is genetic. How you do that is cultural. Likewise, dividing into us vs. them is (possibly) genetic. Doing it via race is cultural. The entire idea of dividing up people based on race is cultural, even if it's not to pick sides.

But, in the end, it's not important if dividing people into 'races', which is really dividing them into superfical-facial-features-and-skin-color is genetic or learned. Because it's complete silliness. It's akin to dividing people based on if their earlobes are attached or detached or if they can curl their tongue. That's the entire point I'm trying to make.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

Foxes (none / 1) (#105)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 10:51:36 AM EST

I didn't mention foxes in my post.

you didn't?

Now where did I put that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago!
[ Parent ]

That wasn't the post you replied to. (none / 0) (#107)
by DavidTC on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 12:04:05 PM EST

A more correct thing would have been to say you didn't mention foxes. The post you replied to was me pointing out that coyotes and wolves should be classified the same, and pretty much everyone agrees, despite what you said about them being different species. I had previously said that foxes and wolves might be the same, we're not sure. We do know coyotes and wolves are the same, and the classification is wrong.

The fact that you made your argument weaker by switching from foxes months ago to coyotes now gives lie to your claim you know what the hell you're talking about WRT canines. At least with foxes you'd have a point. (Of course, you'd be wrong if you claimed humans differ more than foxes and wolves, but you were wrong when you claimed they differ more than coyotes and wolves, so I don't know why that would stop you.)

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

WTF are you talking about? (none / 0) (#112)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 03:06:27 PM EST

Dude, are you in some sort of time warp? The person who brought up foxes was you not me.

When you're done kicking the straw man around perhaps you'll read what I actually wrote?

Now where did I put that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago!
[ Parent ]

No. (none / 0) (#132)
by DavidTC on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 09:20:22 AM EST

So, put the comment page in flat mode, and search for 'fox' via your web browser. Who do you get, me, or you? Why, it's you.

You started off by talking about coyotes and wolves. I said some stuff about them, and offhandedly linked to the last discussion of this sort, where there was a mention of foxes.

You, in your next post, started talking about the differences between foxes and wolves, instead of coyotes and wolves, which is what you had started with and what I was talking about. I hadn't said anything whatsoever about foxes. The only place you could have even read the word foxes was in that other, over-six-months-old discussion.

So, yes, I brought them up...in September 2003. What that has to do with anything present day, I don't know.

OTOH, that supports your 'time warp' theory quite nicely, except maybe you put the wrong person in it. Or maybe it actually is September and we're having this discussion in that article, and I'm just very confused.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

I think perhaps the _labels_ are cultural? (none / 0) (#101)
by toganet on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 10:24:31 AM EST


Johnson's law: Systems resemble the organizations that create them.


[ Parent ]
Perhaps. (none / 0) (#103)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 10:38:18 AM EST

My biggest problem with calling race "cultural" is that it implies that you can get rid of race as easily as getting rid of last year's fad.

The problem is that homo sapiens has a deep seated need to be a part of a tribe. It doesn't matter if we're talking about nations, sports fans or ethnic groups, people have an instinctive need to group themselves and other people into "like" and "unlike".

Actually, it's unfair to people to imply that this is strictly a human trait - years ago I read a fascinating study where researchers painted an entire flock of geese blue and kept them that way for a few generations. By the second generation the blue geese would not mate with "normal" geese and their young wouldn't hang out with "normal" geese.

This behavior is probably the root of speciation - like groups itself with like and after a few hundred thousand years they become even more different than when they started.

Please note that this doesn't justify or rationalize treating a person differently because they belong to a different ethnic group/race/tribe/whatever. We are thinking creatures and we should be able to overcome our instincts. What it does mean is that we aren't going to wake up one day and discover that the "race" problem has evaporated. Each new generation is going to have to repeat the process of being taught to reject their instincts and do the right thing.

Now where did I put that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago!
[ Parent ]

No (none / 1) (#109)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 12:56:22 PM EST

Race is not discrete.  People interbreed all the time.  Most African-Americans are part white.  Many Caucasians have black ancestors.  The Chinese used to be several races, but they all interbred.  Likewise, hispanic people are people from a specific area, who are a blend of white, black and American Indian.

I don't know much about the genetics of wolves and coyotes, but I do know that human beings are all more than 99% alike genetically, and scientists are unable to define race in genetic terms.  Actually, no one can give objective definitions for races.  There's always exceptions and questions about why someone should be one race and not another.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]

This is all true. (none / 0) (#119)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 03:41:49 PM EST

But it's beside the point. No one woke up one morning and said "we should divide people by their skin color". Dividing ourselves up into sub-groups, whether by nationality, tribe, ethnicity, whatever is a fairly deep instinct. Calling it "cultural" implies that we can eliminate race as easily as as we change people's taste in music.

Unfortunately, it's not that easy.

Now where did I put that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago!
[ Parent ]

Reminds me of... (none / 1) (#76)
by nollidj on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 03:59:47 PM EST

...the "race" checkboxes in a standardized test I took in high school. They were something like:

[ ] White, not Hispanic
[ ] Black, not Hispanic
[ ] Asian/Pacific Islander
[ ] Black, Hispanic
[ ] White, Hispanic

The actual list was longer and more detailed about actual ethnicity, but the way that most boxes had "xxxx, not Hispanic" made it really seem as though there should have been the "Hispanic, not Hispanic" option.

muahaha. MuaHaHA! MUAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAA!!!!
[ Parent ]

Was there an option (none / 0) (#80)
by Dr Caleb on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 04:48:18 PM EST

[ ] Secretariat in the third . . .?


Vive Le Canada - For Canadians who give a shit about their country.

There is no K5 cabal.
[ Parent ]

it's called "ethnicity" now (none / 0) (#83)
by tswann01 on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 05:11:15 PM EST

the US gummint has removed "hispanic" from the list of valid values for the "race" attribute, and created a new attribute called "ethnicity", which can basically be "hispanic" or "not hispanic" -- this change should start to trickle down to other systems

[ Parent ]
Hey moron (1.21 / 14) (#51)
by trhurler on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 05:25:42 PM EST

Do you really think a state representative even KNOWS the truth about something like this, or do you think maybe it is more likely she's aping what she was told by someone?

If the latter, then how could she be "lying?"

Further, since you have no idea what procedure was actually followed in obtaining the data, why does the fact that you found a procedure that will work mean anything to you? Has it not occurred to you that incompetence is practically a prerequisite for state government service?!

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Naah (3.00 / 6) (#52)
by melia on Thu Jul 22, 2004 at 06:21:45 PM EST

Do you really think a state representative even KNOWS the truth about something like this, or do you think maybe it is more likely she's aping what she was told by someone?

Seriously, the whole point of her being the "state representative" is that she is responsible for whatever crap she spouts. So this isn't really an excuse.
Disclaimer: All of the above is probably wrong
[ Parent ]

That's actually exactly (2.71 / 7) (#55)
by qpt on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 12:03:03 AM EST

What it does not mean to represent someone else.

Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.
[ Parent ]

Heh (2.00 / 4) (#66)
by trhurler on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 12:14:16 PM EST

It looks like qpt beat me to the punch. In any case, I didn't ask or care to hear your opinion on "the buck stops here" political feelgoodery. What I asked was whether you think a state representative is a person likely to even understand the concept of using several databases in conjunction to obtain data not present in any one of them alone in enough technical detail to know whether he or she was being snowed by someone explaining a situation. I think it is obvious that practically every state representative in the nation would fail that test. Electability to state office has many predictors, such as charisma, kissass nature, party loyalty, willingness to do unethical things or look the other way when others do them, and so on. Competent people generally have more promising careers.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Part of the job (none / 0) (#71)
by pyro9 on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 02:41:45 PM EST

What I asked was whether you think a state representative is a person likely to even understand the concept of using several databases in conjunction to obtain data not present in any one of them alone in enough technical detail to know whether he or she was being snowed by someone explaining a situation.

It is her JOB to know that or to find out. It's not a terribly difficult concept to understand even for people who don't know SQL.

Furthermore, It looks like they didn'tdo awhole lot about the fact that the procedure they attempted failed to perform the function they are legally obligated to perform. Purging felons from the bvoter roles isn't just a 'nice idea', it's Florida Law.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
I think you're missing my point (none / 1) (#85)
by trhurler on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 05:35:06 PM EST

It doesn't matter whether it is her job. There is NO WAY that anyone competent to understand these issues is going to be a state legislator. Have you ever MET any state legislators? Aside from the fact that party politics and the election process(complete with mudslinging that no decent person would EVER willingly choose to endure,) eliminates all the decent human beings in the world from being elected to public office, there's another problem - competent people can get real jobs.

My point is not that things SHOULD be this way, but that they ARE this way, and that as long as that is the case, whining about one particular instance of it is pointless. This woman obviously doesn't know her head from her ass, but is that the problem, or is the real problem that state legislators, the whole country over, face a selection process that ENCOURAGES incompetence?

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Ah.. I get it now.. (none / 0) (#88)
by Kwil on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 07:21:46 PM EST

..you're holding up the bunny in one hand saying "State legislators are incompetent" to distract us from the other hand holding the voter list that disenfranchised democrat voters at the time of the election, and hoping we don't notice until after the next one, yes?

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


[ Parent ]
LOL Typical (none / 0) (#90)
by SPYvSPY on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 08:17:33 PM EST

Back when the felon purge issue was hot, the Dems were claiming that the purge was TOO inclusive, taking valuable BLACK Dem voters off the register because they were namesakes of felons. No one moves the goal posts like the left!
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

Umm (none / 1) (#94)
by Wah on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 12:17:20 AM EST

it's the same move, in a relative direction.

If you only need 500 votes, it works fine if you A)Keep potential voters for the Opponent off the roles or B) Keep potential voters for Yourself on the roles.

It's the same game.  Surely you'd know that, as someone who has wages a never-ending battle against themselves in magazines, and now, it would seem, network tv.
--
umm, holding, holding...
[ Parent ]

Uh huh (none / 0) (#110)
by SPYvSPY on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 12:58:44 PM EST

"You're targeting minorities in the purge (for felons that vote for our candidate)!!"

"You're not taking race into account (for felons that vote for your candidate)!!"
------------------------------------------------

By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.
[ Parent ]

You've lost me (none / 1) (#74)
by melia on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 03:07:36 PM EST

I really don't understand the point you're making - "she didn't know what she was talking about" is no kind of defence - it's an admission that she was a shit, lazy, politician.

In any case, I didn't ask or care to hear your opinion on "the buck stops here" political feelgoodery.

Oh i'm sorry - feel free to ignore any posts you like. You're at liberty not to reply if it's not worth your (valuable, i'm sure) time.

What I asked was whether you think a state representative is a person likely to even understand the concept of using several databases in conjunction

I don't demand that she understands the complexities of databases - just that she refrains from making factually incorrect statements. If she doesn't understand the issues she shouldn't make pronouncements on them. I suppose if you feel accountability isn't important in your politicians, you can vote for her again - your choice as to what constitutes a "good" politician.


Disclaimer: All of the above is probably wrong
[ Parent ]

But that's the problem (none / 1) (#86)
by trhurler on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 05:37:53 PM EST

She probably THINKS she understands. The hardest thing to understand is when your understanding isn't good enough - particularly when you've got people working for you telling you what to think, whose JOB it is to tell you what to think, who have a vested interest in you not really understanding deeply.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
typical republican making excuses for (none / 0) (#98)
by vivelame on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 08:15:56 AM EST

the complete morons in the same party.


--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
Oh, come on (none / 1) (#122)
by trhurler on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 06:24:33 PM EST

You think Republicans are incompetent at an unusual rate? Where are all the local politics scandals? Oh yeah, with the Democrats. Where are all the obvious urban vote fraud scams? Democrats, even though they can't lose anyway - they just can't HELP themselves from being dishonest. Where are the national Congressmen who used their influence to avoid prosecutions for felony charges? Let's see, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy... where are the presidents who committed perjury, admitted to it, and then somehow got off the hook? Oh, wait, that's Clinton. What's the big Republican scandal? Rush Limbaugh - not even a politician. I mean, get real.

I'm no Republican; I'm against their religious bullshit, and I'm against their general social oppressiveness. That said, right now, Democrats DEFINE scandal - don't even think otherwise.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Scandals for All! (none / 2) (#128)
by Jah-Wren Ryel on Sun Jul 25, 2004 at 02:18:15 AM EST

If competency is defined as being able to influence the media into giving them a free pass on their indiscrections, then apparently the democrats are indeed incompetent.  Here's a far from complete list of widely known, but rarely reported examples of republican family values:

Joe Scarborough and the death of Lori Klausutis
Arnold Schwarzenegger and a whole roster full of women, some willing and some not
GW Bush and Margie Schoedinger
GW Bush and Tammy Phillips
GW Bush and Victor Ashe
Jeb Bush and Cynthia Henderson
Neil Bush and Maria Andrews
Neil Bush and various Thai prostitutes - which he admitted to point blank under oath in his divorce proceedings
HW Bush and Jennifer Fitzgerald
Henry Hyde and Cherie Snodgrass
Bob Barr and Jeri Dobbin
Bob Barr and various strippers, likely prostitues
Dan Burton and his bastard son
Newt Gingrich and his treatment of his first wife (divorced her while she was in the hospital with cancer to marry his current mistress)
Newt Gingrich and his treatment of his second wife (divorced her to marry his mistress of about six years, congressional aide Callista Bisek, 23 years his junior)
Strom Thurmond and Carrie Butler, particularly debased because of the difference between his political stance on race and his treatment of the daughter that resulted from the "union," although he does get credit for finally coming around once she reached middle-age
Randy Ankeney and a pair of 17 and 13 year old girls
Bill Bennett and Leola McConnell
Bill Bennett and that little gambling problem of his
Bob Dole and, well, her name doesn't seem to have made it out on the net

Two points about this list:

1) I'm sure not every allegation in it is true, but there is at least some corroborating evidence for each one and in many cases a perponderance of evidence.

2) I picked "sex/morality scandals" because it was easy to hunt down in google and extra-crispy given all the noise the republicans like to make about personal morality (some of those names should be real familiar to anyone who paid attention to the clinton sex scandal), that does not for a minute mean there aren't plenty of REAL scandals that actually impacted their constituency to pick from (e.g. the unprecedented, over-the-top gerrymandering in Texas recently), all you gotta do is look instead of relying on the so-called "liberal media."


[ Parent ]

Sure, sure (none / 0) (#129)
by trhurler on Sun Jul 25, 2004 at 10:20:15 AM EST

But of those that are actually both credible and interesting, every single one DID make the news in a real way. The truth, sad or not, is that nobody really cares whether the Arnold was a sleaze with women when he was younger, just as nobody cares whether he ever used any illegal substances and so on. His popularity is too great; even women find it hard to do more than feign anger with him, excepting the bridge trolls from NOW and so on. On the other hand, some of those are just not credible, too.

But, even if every single one of them were 100% true, and even including the gerrymandering in Texas(I notice you didn't care to mention the fact that the Dems are doing that too at an unprecedented rate as the demographics of urban and near-suburban neighborhoods change,) find me a Republican equivalent to the nearly if not completely universal constant that is Democratic vote fraud in urban areas. Polls illegally kept open later than the law allows, dead people voting, peoples' DOGS voting, people voting in two different places, people voting who didn't even know they voted, whole boxes of votes "being lost," and that's not a complete list. Every year in St. Louis alone, at least one Democrat goes to prison or pays a hefty fine for vote fraud crimes; I can't remember the last time a Republican got involved in such a thing. And remember, in urban areas, Democrats are going to win ANYWAY. They're just stupid people - there's no other explanation.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
"State Representitive"... (none / 3) (#87)
by QillerPenguin on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 06:20:41 PM EST

Glenda Hood is not an elected state representitive, like someone in the Florida state congress is who represents a particular area of the state. She has an appointed position, given to her by the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, while she was about to end her second term as the mayor of Orlando. She has among her responsibilities that she oversees the state and local election departments. She is ultimately responsible for ensuring the integrity of the election rolls.

And this election roll fiasco is just further evidence that she has failed in her duties. Just like she failed in most of her responsibilities when she was mayor of Orlando.

Hood had no previous political experience besides being a big Republican fund raiser. She married into a family who business is renting party tents.

FYI...
"All your Unix are belong to us" - SCO, 2003.
[ Parent ]

Accepted (1.04 / 21) (#59)
by New EviI Fascist Editor on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 04:57:34 AM EST


This article has been provisionally accepted for display on Kuro5hin.org.
What's really disturbing (2.00 / 4) (#60)
by LilDebbie on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 10:42:37 AM EST

I was dicking around the inmate search page and found a poor sap named Pedro Alzerez whose in the clink for life for...get this: buying or selling coke.

Who in the hell gets a life sentence for dealing? Was he importing a quarter of Columbia's exports or what?

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

"Three Strikes"? [nt] (none / 0) (#61)
by warrax on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 10:58:35 AM EST



-- "Guns don't kill people. I kill people."
[ Parent ]
That's Cali (none / 1) (#62)
by LilDebbie on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 11:04:06 AM EST

so no...he must have been selling kilos to toddlers or something.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
While... (3.00 / 6) (#70)
by skyknight on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 02:34:01 PM EST

simultaneously kicking a puppy and shaking down an elderly lady for the food stamps she was going to use to buy oatmeal and cat food.

It's not much fun at the top. I envy the common people, their hearty meals and Bruce Springsteen and voting. --SIGNOR SPAGHETTI
[ Parent ]
Accepted (1.04 / 23) (#68)
by New EviI Fascist Editor on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 12:46:24 PM EST


This article has been provisionally accepted for display on Kuro5hin.org.
"Cuban-dominated Florida????" (2.00 / 4) (#72)
by cactus on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 02:46:01 PM EST

Latinos only make up about 11% of the state's population, fool, and Cubans are about 60% of the Latinos. How the hell do you figure that 6-7% of the population makes the state "Cuban-dominated?"
--
"Politics are the entertainment branch of Industry"
-- Frank Zappa
You ever hang out with Cubans? (nt) (none / 1) (#78)
by Wah on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 04:17:05 PM EST

[best friends, yada, yada]
--
umm, holding, holding...
[ Parent ]
Because (none / 1) (#82)
by wji on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 05:07:28 PM EST

Rich assholes run Florida, like everywhere else, and a lot of those Cubans came over because they were rich assholes.

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
[ Parent ]
Er (none / 0) (#84)
by wji on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 05:12:32 PM EST

I posted that while I was still editing it. MAYBE that's how it works, maybe the "Cubans politically dominate Miami" thing is as much a myth as the "Jews politically dominate America" thing -- just a very similar set of interests among the state and a particular ethnic group.

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
[ Parent ]
wow (none / 0) (#89)
by yoders on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 08:07:43 PM EST

"...and a lot of those Cubans came over because they were rich assholes."

That is the most ignorant statement I've read on k5 in at least a week.

[ Parent ]
Yah, where DID Tex go? /nt (none / 1) (#95)
by WonderJoust on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 01:43:19 AM EST


_________________________________
i like your style: bitter, without being a complete cunt about it.
-birds ate my face
[ Parent ]

Swings (none / 2) (#96)
by mcc on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 03:31:11 AM EST

When under half of the population regularly votes, and the margin of victory in nearly all elections is a vanishingly small, It is very easy for a politically-active, well-coordinated group  to dominate a state's politics with only 6-7% of the populace.

That said, jjazz was wrong to say "Cuban-dominated Florida". What he should have said was "Cuban Lobby-dominated Florida". These two things are not identical.

[ Parent ]

not really (none / 1) (#136)
by emmons on Tue Jul 27, 2004 at 10:30:12 PM EST

It is very, very rare for an election in the US to have more than 50% turnout, yet landslides happen all the time. It's just the last few years that national politics have become so bitterly divided, but it's not always like this and it won't stay this way forever.

You're right about small groups making an impact on tight elections, but that happens on both sides so they often cancel each other. Hence some elections being so close.

Anyway, you're missing the point: Cuban-American felons' votes being counted in Florida is significant because there's about a 90-95% chance of those votes being for Republicans.

---
In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams

[ Parent ]

In Hileah only... [nt] (none / 1) (#81)
by neozeed on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 04:56:08 PM EST


-----------------------
Unless you're alive you can't play. And if you don't play, you don't get to be alive.

sorry Search for Hispanic Inmates (none / 1) (#92)
by MonkeyMan on Fri Jul 23, 2004 at 09:38:40 PM EST

The inmate ethnicity coding does not seem to be very good. When I tried a search for the notorious spokesman for a famous Columbian Stimulant, Juan Valdez, it turned up 3 white guys when I left race open. When I explicitly asked for "hispanics" I got no hits.

Of course, you could probably make do by coding names as spanish sounding.

I noticed... (none / 1) (#97)
by SlashDread on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 06:07:26 AM EST

Noone seems even interested in the neat little fact that -republicans- are exluding a -republican dominated- ethnicity (if thats the word) from excusion to vote... in Florida!

Oh I gettid, everything sounds plausibel or even likely, when you add two words... in Florida!

Im not even going to bother about the whole ethicity on forms thing, save to say we europeans are a bunch of racists too, but we dont proud ourselfes over it on every damn form.

"/Dread"

You misread it... (none / 2) (#123)
by ShadowNode on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 06:59:49 PM EST

They're excluding a republican dominated minority from the voter *exclusion* list, meaning they're letting republicans who shouldn't be voting vote anyway.

[ Parent ]
Don't trust prison databases (none / 1) (#102)
by toganet on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 10:29:39 AM EST

I used to process this kind of data for the state of Texas.  Lots of inconsistencies between the arrest data, dept of corrections data, court records, etc.

It's a wonder more folks aren't lost in the system, or end up serving the wrong sentence.

More to the point, Texas has (or had at the time) 4 separate race categories:  "Black", "Hispanic", "Asian", and "Anglo".  Anglo is basically anyone who is not black or asian and speaks English as their first language.  Apparently, white Europeans are not considered human in Texas.

Johnson's law: Systems resemble the organizations that create them.


We had a case just recently (none / 2) (#118)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 03:35:52 PM EST

in Pennsylvania where a prisoner got "lost" for over a year because a county picked him up for suspicion of possession of pot, and while he was in the clink he missed a meeting with his parole officer. The resulting confusion between the two counties resulted in him being "lost" for over a year and when he finally got the pot charge dismissed, he was promptly thrown back in for violating parole.

Now where did I put that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago!
[ Parent ]
One thing I don't get... (none / 1) (#106)
by canwaf on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 11:42:44 AM EST

Why is this felon purge happening in the first place? Criminals can't vote?

yeah, and (none / 1) (#114)
by Vilim on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 03:29:42 PM EST

Criminals, and anyone else who get "mistakenly" barred from voting (read: visible minorities). I like the way things are run here in Canada. The ability to vote plays an important role in rehabilitation. If a felon votes s/he feels more like a part of society and is less likely to wrong society again.



[ Parent ]
Any evidence of this? (none / 0) (#117)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 03:33:35 PM EST

I'm not a big fan of disenfranchising felons, but I'd love to see some prove that prisoners who vote are less likely to commit additional crimes.

Now where did I put that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago!
[ Parent ]
Okay... (none / 0) (#127)
by canwaf on Sun Jul 25, 2004 at 12:55:59 AM EST

As much as I'm proud how our electoral system works. Proof would be almost impossible to come by. The reasons why Canadian Felons where allowed the right to vote because our Supreme Court struck down laws preventing them to do so under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the disseration the judge said something along the lines of "criminals are being put through a system which the elected officials spend most of their time making, we should allow them to help choose these people." Or something to that extent. Is the right to vote intrenched in the US Constitution?

[ Parent ]
US Constitution and voting (none / 2) (#131)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sun Jul 25, 2004 at 09:26:07 PM EST

It's a bit grey. The constitution sets the bar (which at this point is simply "must be a citizen over 18") it also forbids denying someone the vote because of race or sex or because of inability to pay a tax.

So, in effect, there is nothing in the US constitution that guarantees someone the right to vote; individual states can and do place further restrictions on who can vote. Such restrictions are usually to prevent voter fraud (which happened on a fairly large scale in the 19th and early 20th centuries). For example, you might have to prove you've lived in the same county for at least 6 months before you can vote in county elections. You will also have to show a special ID ("voter registration") to show that you are allowed to vote.

Like I said - it sounds pretty draconian until you notice that we still have occasional problems in the US with people collecting van loads of "voters" and driving them from one polling place to the next and voting over and over using false IDs.

On a purely partisan note, I'd like to point out that it's always the Democrats who are being charged with doing this.

Now where did I put that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago!
[ Parent ]

admittedly (none / 0) (#133)
by Vilim on Mon Jul 26, 2004 at 01:33:08 PM EST

Admittedly my argument is largely a hand-waving argument. However I would imagine it to have some validity, which would you be more likely to hurt, a society which distances itself from you? or a society that you feel a part of.

This would be very difficult to test. If you did the test in Canada, you would have to strip a group of felons of thier right to vote, which wouldn't go over to well with the courts. A voluntary study wouldn't work either (you would wind up with people who didn't care about voting in the first place). Also comparing two different countries (US and Canada) would be comparing apples and oranges due to the varying penal systems.



[ Parent ]
Depends on the state. (none / 0) (#116)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 03:32:32 PM EST

Some states strip felons of the right to vote. Some do it only for the duration of their sentences, some do it until the ex-convict petitions to get the right back. Some do it permenently, which I didn't know till this thread started.

Florida is one of those states that allow an ex-felon to petition for his vote to be restored.

Now where did I put that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago!
[ Parent ]

i thought (none / 1) (#111)
by ljj on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 01:32:21 PM EST

The USA was free of classification by race?

--
ljj

At this point (none / 0) (#115)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 03:30:45 PM EST

the only people who want Americans classified by race are the ones who are trying end racism by enforcing affirmative action, minority set-asides and so on.

I'd get all worked up about the contradictions in this except no one has come up with any better solutions to racism.

Now where did I put that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago!
[ Parent ]

I have a solution to end racism (none / 1) (#124)
by skim123 on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 08:54:28 PM EST

And it's happening right before our eyes. It's called inter-race breeding. Blacks marrying whites, whites marrying Asians, Hispanics marrying Indians, and on and on. True, it is not as quick a fix as what others have proposed, but it will be the only lasting one, and one that doesn't need the "help" of the government.

Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
PT Barnum


[ Parent ]
Agreed. (NT) (none / 0) (#125)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 08:56:22 PM EST



Now where did I put that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago!
[ Parent ]
Voting machines are not computers (none / 1) (#126)
by gregb on Sat Jul 24, 2004 at 11:50:14 PM EST

The same Glenda Hood had this to say about voting machines: "Personally, I have a high degree of confidence that touch-screen machines will record accurate election results this fall. Here's why: They use computer technology, which makes them fast and accurate, but they are not computers as we think of them in several important ways. They were built for the sole purpose of being voting machines." Tallahassee Democrat | 04/17/2004

She goes to talk about their mechanical dependability but blithely ignores the potential for intentional, insider malfeasence. She happily cites the fact that they have been certified but forgets to mention that this certification did not find the auditing bugs that have been reported since they were "certified".

Is she ignorant, incompentent or worse? The AP survey reported tonight specifically identifies Florida as one of the two most important states (the other was Ohio). I worry about our democracy!

--Greg

but they are not computers (none / 0) (#137)
by Mitheral on Fri Jul 30, 2004 at 02:25:57 PM EST

They were built for the sole purpose of being voting machines

This is just wrong even if taken at face value. Many voting machines are running windows embedded.

[ Parent ]

hispanic? (none / 1) (#138)
by opusman on Tue Aug 03, 2004 at 05:55:32 AM EST

Is hispanic the same as latin(o|a) ?

Fun with Public Officials and Public Databases | 138 comments (91 topical, 47 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!