Thursday, December 07, 2006

Just In: Special Court Coverage


Supervisor of Elections Brian Aungst confirms TR special Q&A Appearance.


In the upcoming days I will try to cover the court case as best as possible. The JA interview is almost ready, but this blog must address the current issue facing the UF Supreme Court properly before calling it a year and posting the Headliner-Q&A-of-2006 (I wonder if James is gigglin right now - or - flexing in front of the PC, pretending to rip his shirt off, and mumbling "HULKAMANIA, BROTHER! WATCHA GONNA DO WHEN HULKMANIA RUNS WILD ON YOU BROTHER!") LOL.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Brian is right.

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/12/07/Opinion/Florida_should_switch.shtml

Anonymous said...

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/12/07/Opinion/Florida
_should_switch.shtml

Christian Duque said...

Nice links. Certainly one needs to look closely at both sides of this very important debate. Despite serving on a special Exec. Committee to investigate online voting, I am still not completely sold on the process as a replacement of the current system. However, I would not scrap it as an option altogether either.

Nice links.

Anonymous said...

Might I add

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/washington/08voting.html?hp&ex=1165640400&en=f4eb13c368fcd66d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Pedro said...

begin devils_advocate:

With much respect for all those involved, but I think we're past the point of beating the dead horse.

Online voting is not coming to UF SG anytime soon, and this issue should DIE, because it's no longer an issue. The 13th Congressional District has shown us that machines can be either be problematic, or be programmed in malicious ways. So NO TO COMPUTERIZED VOTING!!

This is from a software developer and a student of theoretical computer science. BRING BACK THE PAPER BALLOTS.

Second, if the indies want something they can harp on, rewrite the 700 codes to use proportional representation. There's no way indies are ever going to win a district A or B, a freshman or a sophomore seat without it.

If you can't sneak it past the Senate, make it a ballot initiative.

Oh and BTW: there's a loophole in the 700 codes that the Senate may amend the results of an initiative after 60 days of passing. Oops!! Care to make that 2 years? So if the Senate so wishes it can make online voting illegal again. In January. This whole thing is so silly that I might do it myself, bring legislation to re-ban online voting.

So if you really want to put it past the reach of the Senate or the SBP, make it a constitutional amendment and get 7000 people to vote for it.

NO TO ONLINE VOTING! PR... THINK ABOUT IT! :)

end:

Pedro

Anonymous said...

I can't believe Aungst has managed to convert so many GDI's into distrusting online voting. I wonder if there is a correlation between the fact that many of the same people who at onetime advocated online voting for SG, now abhor electronic voting for "real" elections?

Christian Duque said...

Brian Aungst is a great public speaker and comes prepared. This I can tell you from our days in senate together.

I remain hopeful for online voting and would like to continue seeing it as an option, but to be quite honest, I do have my reservations. I know it's supposed to be very secure, but I think a lot of people arguing against its security do not mean it's error-margins as much as its integrity (e.g. group voting, coercion, etc).

These are valid concerns.