That’s the part you’re missing here.
[/QUOTE]
Shouldn’t even the appearance of impropriety be considered unacceptable when it comes to these matters, in the same way that judges are supposed to recuse themselves if their impartiality can reasonably be questioned?
Just yes or no please.
You’re right. A lot of people who really want to believe that the election was stolen find this to be all the evidence they need. The more reasonable among us see it as a reason to look into everything as closely and honestly as possible, make sure everything was above board, and most of all, take steps to make sure future elections don’t have the same appearance of impropriety.
Unfortunately, no matter how reasonably it is stated or how much fishyness arises, this gets us called sore losers. If we had video evidence of Dick Cheney taking an axe to voting booths in Dem-heavy districts, and of Bush personally pulling thousands of Kerry paper ballots out of the pile and eating them, it wouldn’t be enough to convince a lot of Bush supporters that an investigation might be informative, and those very people happen to be the ones in charge now.
I mean, I don’t think anybody seriously denies that there were irregularities in the voting in Florida five years ago, certainly more than enough to throw Bush’s tiny margin into question, and yet five years later the ridiculous Sore/Loserman meme lives on. I think that’s why we haven’t seen the Dems in Congress pursue this more vigorously–it won’t change the outcome of the election, and no matter how much irregularity or outright fraud they find, they’re still going to get tarred over it.
As opposed to the Democrats, of course, who have never stooped to such dirty tricks.
Landslide Lyndon? Box 13? Nah, that musta been some other party.
Shouldn’t even the appearance of impropriety be considered unacceptable when it comes to these matters, in the same way that judges are supposed to recuse themselves if their impartiality can reasonably be questioned?
Just yes or no please.
[/QUOTE]
No. How’s that? 
No.
CEOs of companies are permitted to participate in the political process. They aren’t judges.
Look, no offense, I actually LIVE in the state in question, and (here is a first for me, admitting where I stood on something) am one of the people who would have been affected by the issue if it was true. The only reason that Democrats are bitching is that:
They lost (and suspected they would lose in advance), and
We’ve gone back to some sort of late 19th century approach to politics, replete with yellow journalism, scathing partisan attacks, lack of a sense of social grace, etc.
There is zero (repeat that word, zero) evidence that anything untoward actually happened in Ohio with voting machines in 2004. For 2005, the voting machines have been upgraded to make even more certain that an attempt to defraud an election’s result would be able to be detected. We’ll see how it goes. But unless and until someone actually uncovers an instance of true irregularities in Ohio that are most reasonably, or even somewhat possibly, explained by attempted fraud, then shut the hell up and move on.
This state’s Democratic party is in such disarray it cannot field one single credible statewide candidate for office next year, despite the fact that the Republican Party here is mired in scandal. The (Toledo) Blade has been doing everything it can to try and wedge open a crack for the Democrats; their best effort is to have one single solitary State Senator doing virtually all the criticism of the entrenched politicos from the Republican Party. If the Democrats, both in Ohio and nationally would stop bitching about losing and start organizing to win the next round, they might actually manage to do something that would help them capture seats and or offices.
Not that I’m a Democrat, but I hate it when there are foregone conclusions across the board, which is the current state of Ohio politics. 
In general, sure. Here, though, we’re discussing the head of the company which makes and programs the machines that *do * the judging. You do see a difference, I hope.
DSYoung, once again, it is not about the sorry state of Ohio politics, the topic is a national election, affecting all of us. It’s a shame as well that you’ve chosen to continue the Sore/Loserman stuff you claim to deplore, albeit with different wording. If the credibility issues with the last 2 elections are stonewalled instead of investigated and fixed, the next ones won’t have any better credibility, either, no matter who wins. Can you really say the stonewalling and dismissiveness you and others advocate is in our country’s interest?
Yet. But I hear that’s on the agenda for next year. 
A prosecuter needs some evidence to make a presentation to a grand jury. But since only one side of the story is presented, the standard of proof required for an indictment isn’t really all that hard to meet.
So the standard, by that description, is “some evidence”. Unfortunately, that is too high a standard for the OP.
His standard is “accusations”. In this instance, of course - if it were accusations of Democratic wrong-doing he would instantly flip-flop into howls of outrage.
I agree. But the inescapable conclusion cannot be drawn outside the Pit.
Regards,
Shodan
What, that Diebold is criminally negligent with the coding practice for the single most important bit of software in these United States?
I think the case can be made.
A necessary element of a negligence case is damages.
Assume that you are correct, and Diebold’s design had egregious security holes. Let’s assume that this bad design otherwise rises to the level of criminal culpability. You still need to show damages. What are the damages here?
Good question. Distrust in the electoral system, cost paid for a faulty product?
Enough already!
Let’s have the damn investigation and when no actual fraud is shown will you demos shut up about “voter fraud in Ohio” or will you want an investigation of the investigation?
Actually, before we discuss elements of the crime you have in mind, I should first ask you to specify the statute or legal doctrine that you’re thinking of. What is the basis for imposing criminal liability against a software vendor for bad design, no matter how negligent, in cases where the bad design doesn’t cause personal injury or direct property damage?
I can’t think of one, at least not outside of the consumer protection/fraud areas, and that doesn’t seem to be what you have in mind.
How about “GAO Report shows need for a more robust system”?
The posibility of fraud is there, it’s always been there by one method or another. Landslide Lyndon Johnson, Boss Twead, “vote early vote often” etc. We had this discussion before. There will always be people who want to cheat. Elctronic voting needs to have some sort of paper record, paper trail, something that can be used to verify the results. It has to be in a nonrewritable, unalterable and permanent, crash proof form.
No. Why isn’t he allowed to support his candidate of choice?
The FAR clauses (Federal Acquisition Regulations) cover this already. It is a breach of contract and it violates federal law to knowingly deliver a bad product to the government.
Thanks.
Your first suggestion is too tenuous. Generally, the law doesn’t provide a remedy for acts that (only) cause worry, fear, or emotional distress. Your second suggestion refers to a claim that would be governed by contract law. If the machine didn’t meet Ohio’s specs, or was itherwise a defective product, Ohio (or whatever county or other govenmental entity purchased the machines) could sue for breach of contract.
You honestly have no qualms about a partisan company making the vote tabulating machines and software?
How are you not bothered by this? I honestly can’t fathom it. Are you telling me that if you closed your eyes and imagined a situation where everything was reversed and it was a wild eyed Democrat who made the vote tabulators and Kerry won by a slim margin, you’d just shrug your shoulders and go “meh, can’t prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.” I don’t believe that for a second.