Thursday, December 07, 2006
Just In: Special Court Coverage
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Brian is right.
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/12/07/Opinion/Florida_should_switch.shtml
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/12/07/Opinion/Florida
_should_switch.shtml
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.
Might I add
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/washington/08voting.html?hp&ex=1165640400&en=f4eb13c368fcd66d&ei=5094&partner=homepage
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?
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.
Post a Comment