Posted by admin on Jun 7, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments
I just watched an amazing, scary and astonishing TV documentary on HBO, “Hacking Democracy.” A small group of citizens curious and frustrated by the vote counting and tracking system, headed by a grandmother, asked the tough question that most public officials should have asked, but were afraid to ask: ‘IS YOUR VOTE SAFE?”. And..
The Answer Will Shock You
It will be showing again on (please check you local listing to verify times and channels)
HBO #504 – 11/2/06 – 10:00PM
HBO #502 – 11/4/06 – 10:00AM
HOB #501 – 11/5/06 – 7:00AM
The following is an expert taken from the producer’s website with their permission. For the complete article go to Public Interest Pictures (dot) Org.
“Hacking Democracy: This cautionary documentary exposes the vulnerability of computers – which count approximately 80% of America’s votes in county, state and federal elections – suggesting that if our votes aren’t safe, then our democracy isn’t safe either.
Electronic voting machines count 80% of the votes cast in America today.
But are they reliable? Are they safe from tampering? From a current congressional hearing to persistent media reports that suggest misuse of data and even outright fraud, concerns over the integrity of electronic voting are growing by the day. And if the voting process is not secure, neither is America’s democracy.
In 2002, Seattle grandmother and writer Bev Harris asked officials in her county why they had acquired electronic touch screen systems for their elections. Unsatisfied with their explanation, she set out to learn about electronic voting machines on her own. In the course of her research, which unearthed hundreds of reported incidents of mishandled voting information, Harris stumbled across an “online library” of the Diebold Corporation, discovering a treasure trove of information about the inner-workings of the company’s voting system…
In Florida, Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho presided over a trial “mini-election” to see if the vote could be hacked without being detected. Before votes were actually cast, computer analyst Harri Hursti “stuffed the ballot box” by entering votes on the computer’s memory card. Then, after votes were cast, the results displayed when the same memory card was entered in the central tabulating program indicated that fraud was indeed possible. In other words, by accessing a memory card before an election, someone could change the results – a claim Diebold had denied was possible.
Ultimately, Bev Harris’ research proved that the top-secret computerized systems counting the votes in America’s public elections are not only fallible, but also vulnerable to undetectable hacking, from local school board contests to the presidential race. With the electronic voting machines of three companies – Diebold, ESS and Sequoia – collectively responsible for around 80 percent of America’s votes today, the stakes for democracy are high…
HACKING DEMOCRACY was directed by Simon Ardizzone and Russell Michaels;
produced by Simon Ardizzone, Robert Carrillo Cohen and Russell Michaels;
executive producers, Earl Katz, Sarah Teale and Sian Edwards; edited by Sasha Zik. For HBO: supervising producer, John Hoffman; executive producer, Sheila Nevins.”
Public Interest Pictures
2211 Corinth Ave., Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90064
ph: 310-312-5400
info@publicinterestpictures.org
Want to Live an Extra 10 Years?
read more
Posted by admin on Jun 3, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments
Most will agree that “fairness” of the vote is the most important criteria for a voting system whether paper voting or online voting. “Fairest” vote could be defined as the vote which best represents the wish of the majority of the electorate.
Many things can affect fairness of the vote. For example:
* the openness of the contest to willing candidates
* the ease with which people can vote and gain access to information on candidates
* the vote counting method
* the integrity of the vote harvest, vote counting and result reporting
* the existence and transparency of an audit trail
* ease with which voters can confirm that their vote was recorded and counted correctly, and
* the time, cost and resources required to run a vote.
The choice between an online voting system, paper voting system or hybrid voting system can affect all these aspects of the vote fairness. As the manager of BigPulse.com, a firm that has specialized in high security online voting for ten years, my bias is clearly declared towards online voting and in some cases hybrid voting.
Security and protection of anonymity are the hardest to get right in any voting system, requiring many years of testing in electronic voting systems. However a properly tested online voting system can offer many advantages for security, transparency, accessibility, flexibility and cost.
A flexible online voting system will cater for many vote counting methods. The choice of vote counting method is an important consideration in fairness, for example first-past-the- post voting (FPTP) , Single Transferable Vote (STV), Instant-runoff voting (IRV) or range voting – and each method can produce different winners.
However it is not always clear which voting counting method provides the best measurement of majority opinion as there is not always a definitive mathematical answer to this question.
For example a single round vote FPTP contest with three or more candidates can produce a winner which never wins in a paired contest with any other candidate, while it is possible that a losing candidate in a FPTP vote contest may win in any paired contest. Most people will agree that in this case the FPTP result is not fair and an alternative voting method that comes closer to emulating the paired result is fairer. Preferential voting, that is, ranked voting methods and FPTP with multiple rounds of voting tend to reduce this risk of eliminating candidates that do better in paired contests.
Maximizing the degree of proportional representation and minimizing the incentive for strategic voting are two important measures of fairness. Proportional representation means the elected candidates represent the natural divisions within the electorate. Strategic voting means voting for what you think is the best possible or likely outcome even if it means not voting according to your true preferences – for example in a contest with three or more candidates, voters can be tempted to guess how others will vote and attempt to vote in a manner that gives the best likely result, rather than voting their true preferences.
A degree of proportional representation is possible in contests with more than one winner, the more winners the more proportional it can be. In this case the form of preferential or ranked voting known as Single Transferable Vote is fairer than FPTP because the Single Transferable Vote is much better than FPTP at producing proportional representation. However in a single winner contest (known as instant-runoff in the case of Single Transferable Vote), neither system can produce proportional representation, although Single Transferable Vote may be considered fairer in the sense that it leaves the door open to proportional representation.
If elimination of strategic voting is the criteria of fairness then the fair choice between FPTP and instant-runoff is not quite so obvious as it depends on the number of candidates and how many rounds of voting can be tolerated with FPTP voting. For example, if only one candidate is eliminated after each round of voting then, from the perspective of strategic voting, the FPTP vote is just as fair as instant run off and also allows people to simply vote their first preference in each round of voting.
However FPTP is inferior to instant-runoff when more than one candidate is eliminated after any round of FPTP voting. Also with multiple round FPTP voting, voter fatigue, cost and time delay may all impact on fairness. For example a contest with 10 candidates can require up to nine rounds of voting using FPTP if it is to match the fairness of an instant runoff vote. The instant-runoff vote requires only one round of voting.
Want to Live an Extra 10 Years?
read more
Posted by admin on May 23, 2010 in Articles | 0 comments
Recent surveys carried out in Australia and America have uncovered that the girl next door image is more appealing than the stereo type tall slim and beautiful model look according to male singles who took part in such surveys. This article contains several quotes by male singles who took part in surveys we researched. When the time comes to look for romance and long term dating prospects, sweet and simple plain Jane got the guys vote for sex appeal. “The girl next door image portrays mystery and fantasy all wrapped up in one package” These surveys were conducted via online dating services and chat rooms.
It appears that when everything is said and done, male singles are more secure with a lady who is natural and comfortable within her own body. Pretentious and unapproachable females were seen as insecure and often had a chip on their shoulder. Male singles who participated saw pretentious females as negative and usually had an axe to grind against the entire world. “Sure its an ego trip to chat up or start dating gorgeous females but I wouldn’t rely on anything longer term to eventuate” Short skirts and skimpy outfits were an indication of a good time girl or a girl to have some fun with for a short or medium term. This image was not viewed on as marriage qualities “Every girl has their own sexiness, why do some females try and pull off the same image as everybody else” ?
Other determinind factors men looked for in a good wife or even long term partners can be determined by a quality education standard and somebody who is financially secure. Increasingly males, traditionally the same as women, see a financially viable women as an attractive item. “With such an expensive and financially driven world, couples struggle unless there are two incomes nowadays” Interestingly, guys opted for women in professions including nursing and school teaching instead of authority type professions including lawyers and Doctors. Male singles seem to be avoiding female singles who lack ambition and vision.
Males also compared the difference when searching for a potential wife online and offline. Chat rooms or online dating services are quickly becoming a chatting and dating hotspot with singles looking for long term romances. An online dating service is thought of as somewhere more likely to find a serious dating partner instead of at a pub or night club. “Using online dating and chat rooms its simple to determine genuine females by their profiles, with the night clubs the atmosphere is clouded by noise and alcohol”
So if its genuine love the females are looking for,its obvious by comments made and what the general research indicated, that guys just want the ladies to be themselves and to let their own personality shine through.
Free Online Dating Service and Chat Rooms for Singles Australia Internet Dating
Want to Live an Extra 10 Years?
read more
