Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017 - (D) Win

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1380
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#726

Post by neeneko » Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:17 am

AndyinPA wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:16 pm
Just in general, there has to be a better way to register people to vote than DMVs or other offices. I'm sure republicans would never agree, but since any citizen has the inherent right to vote (or should), why can't the right to vote be conferred on a child when born? They make them get a Social Security number now. I'm sure there are difficulties in this and it would need to be thought through, but it seems like it could be simpler and more fair than what's going on now.
The problem is 'registration' is about registering someone with a particular region.

However, I think the idea could still work. Government records follow people wherever they go. Defaulting to school records and taxes alone would probably pull in a large chunk of the population.



User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 5075
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#727

Post by Slim Cognito » Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:23 am

I don't doubt the reasoning that polls are untrustworthy because people don't want to admit they're voting for man who stalks and assaults underage teenagers, but I also wonder about the women who won't admit to their friends and family they were also assaulted, stayed quiet and plan to secretly vote for the democrat.


ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9485
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#728

Post by GreatGrey » Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:26 am

Well at least we know the pedophile isn’t an anti Semite.


I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 7172
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#729

Post by RVInit » Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:35 am

Slim Cognito wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:23 am
I don't doubt the reasoning that polls are untrustworthy because people don't want to admit they're voting for man who stalks and assaults underage teenagers, but I also wonder about the women who won't admit to their friends and family they were also assaulted, stayed quiet and plan to secretly vote for the democrat.
That's a distinct possibility.


"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#730

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:55 am

GreatGrey wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:26 am
Well at least we know the pedophile isn’t an anti Semite.
I suspect he is. Anti Semites often brag that some of their best friends lawyers are Jews.



User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18297
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#731

Post by Volkonski » Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:00 am

I fear that Moore will be elected. :(

In a few months there will be a scandal about Moore sexually abusing his interns. :madguy:


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Skip Intro
Posts: 3230
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:12 pm

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#732

Post by Skip Intro » Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:02 am

3E351A0C-40BE-42A0-A452-C4CA3DE70E33.jpeg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


In the Trump era anything is true if enough people believe it.

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 7172
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#733

Post by RVInit » Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:04 am



"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
Flatpointhigh
Posts: 7623
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 1:05 pm
Location: Hotel California, PH23
Occupation: Voice Actor, Podcaster, I hold a Ph.D in Procrastination.
Contact:

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#734

Post by Flatpointhigh » Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:07 am

Volkonski wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:00 am
I fear that Moore will be elected. :(

In a few months there will be a scandal about Moore sexually abusing his interns. :madguy:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic ... roy-moore/
A Democratic lawmaker in the House is calling on the Senate Sergeant at Arms to take steps "to prepare the Page Program for the possible election of Roy Moore." In a letter to the Sergeant at Arms Frank Larkin, Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wisconsin, said she urges him to protect Senate pages.

"I would like to know what preventative steps are being undertaken to safeguard Senate Pages from predatory conduct of U.S. Senators and Senate staff," she wrote. "It would be unconscionable for Congress to not be vigilant and proactive in taking precautions to safeguard these children given the well sourced allegations against Roy Moore."



"It is wrong to say God made rich and poor; He only made male and female, and He gave them the Earth as their inheritance."- Thomas Paine, Forward to Agrarian Justice
Cancer broke me

User avatar
MsDaisy
Posts: 4499
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:30 pm

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#735

Post by MsDaisy » Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:17 am

Skip Intro wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:30 pm
OMG what a crock of shit!


Birfers are toast

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10069
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#736

Post by Kendra » Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:30 am




User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 7172
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#737

Post by RVInit » Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:35 am

Food for thought



"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
GhostOfSolomon
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:44 pm
Location: Free State

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#738

Post by GhostOfSolomon » Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:41 am

The Alabama Supreme Court stepped into Tuesday’s U.S. Senate race between Republican Roy Moore and Democrat Doug Jones on Monday night by blocking a lower state court’s ruling earlier in the day that ordered election officials to take steps to preserve digital images of every ballot cast Tuesday.
https://www.alternet.org/activism/alaba ... erify-vote


One must not accept any doctrine from reverence, but first try it as gold is tried by fire.

#IngloriousBastard
#Wolverine

User avatar
GhostOfSolomon
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:44 pm
Location: Free State

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#739

Post by GhostOfSolomon » Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:45 am

Alabama’s top election official, Secretary of State John Merrill, just returned from an election monitoring mission in Russia, where he says the process he observed was “free and fair,” though the overall report on the election came back less glowing.
http://whnt.com/2016/09/29/what-did-ala ... -election/

He is now AL Secretary of State


One must not accept any doctrine from reverence, but first try it as gold is tried by fire.

#IngloriousBastard
#Wolverine

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 7172
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#740

Post by RVInit » Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:02 am

GhostOfSolomon wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:41 am
The Alabama Supreme Court stepped into Tuesday’s U.S. Senate race between Republican Roy Moore and Democrat Doug Jones on Monday night by blocking a lower state court’s ruling earlier in the day that ordered election officials to take steps to preserve digital images of every ballot cast Tuesday.
https://www.alternet.org/activism/alaba ... erify-vote
I read that article and have one comment to make. Checking a box does NOT change a program. It changes the value of a variable in a program. And, as long as the program was tested, that is not a problem. A proper testing of that program would have tested what happens when the box is checked and what happens when the box is not checked. And, as long as the results in both cases - checked and unchecked - is as intended, then checking or unchecking the box is not problematic and absolutely does not constitute "changing the program". As far as any other issues go, I have no opinion. But trying to equate using a program with writing or changing a program is absolutely disingenuous - or ignorant at the very least. Checking a box constitutes using a program, not "changing" a program. Maybe there are directives that specifically state that the box should be left unchecked. In that case, OK, but say so. Don't try to say that it means that you are "changing the program".


"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 1565
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Occupation: We build cars

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#741

Post by Gregg » Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:15 am

Back to getting people registered easily my idea is schools. Deputize someone in the office of every school to accept and process applications for voter registration, to be forwarded to the county Board of Elections for final approval and adding the name to the voting roles. Every county has multiple schools, the office staff at each is both trained in that kind of work and often familiar with the people who would be coming in. They just fill out a from, sign a jurat witnessed by a reliable public official and the Board of Elections sets up screening for eligibility, such as citizenship, criminal record etc... that is determined there. We all have a school close by and no one is going to be able to close all the schools in a county....hell, we're not grating security clearances for nuclear codes here. Are you a US Citizen? Are you a disqualified felon? Do you know of any other reason you are not eligible to vote at the address you have provided? Sign here, your voter ID should come in the mail in a week or two....


Honorary Commander, 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment
Deadly Sausage Dogs from the Sky

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7090
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#742

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:12 pm

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/po ... ssion=true
MUST read! A few choice selections:
What I Saw Inside Roy Moore's Barn Burner
The message made zero sense. People lapped it up.


At the risk of sounding like every liberal Yankee bogeyman flitting through the minds of the assembled, this event was completely nuts. It was a naked appeal to unreason. It was the Rose Parade of empowered ignorance. It was the Royal Wedding of Stupid and Mean. It was the Celebration of the Lizard Brain. The Id was in the saddle, and it was riding the crowd, and the barker at this particular carnival of fools was quite happy to bring all the suckers in out of the Alabama dark and into the freak show he’d created.

This was the first time I’d ever seen the Steve Bannon Show in person, and I was struck by how completely full of painfully obvious horseshit he is. A rootless cosmopolitan, a former investment banker at Goldman Sachs, a former producer who worked in godless Hollywood, a man who wouldn’t have a public career at all had he not latched onto a lunatic wingnut zillionaire from the proletarian enclaves of the Hamptons, Bannon came down to Midland City like a combination of Elmer Gantry and an aluminum siding salesman, unspooling angry banalities about the contempt other people have for the “working class,” about how he is one with all the old white folks gathered in the activity barn because they all share a fealty to a pussy-grabbing casino bankrupt who’s coherent for about 20 minutes in the morning. This is the oldest scam in American politics. I thought better of Bannon, at least in terms of his material.

Make no mistake. Bannon had his work cut out for him with Roy Moore, a grim, nasty, Bible-banging old crank with the stage presence of an end table and the rhetorical style of an Old Testament prophet whose ravings didn’t make the cut for the Bible. He is stiff and unpleasant. He couldn’t keep the pages of his prepared text together; occasionally, a sheet or three would fall to his feet, and he would fill the void with long quotations from Samuel Adams, selections from the Breitbart Hymnal for the Permanently Aggrieved, and some of his original work.


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1380
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#743

Post by neeneko » Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:18 pm

RVInit wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:02 am
I read that article and have one comment to make. Checking a box does NOT change a program. It changes the value of a variable in a program. And, as long as the program was tested, that is not a problem. A proper testing of that program would have tested what happens when the box is checked and what happens when the box is not checked. And, as long as the results in both cases - checked and unchecked - is as intended, then checking or unchecking the box is not problematic and absolutely does not constitute "changing the program". As far as any other issues go, I have no opinion. But trying to equate using a program with writing or changing a program is absolutely disingenuous - or ignorant at the very least. Checking a box constitutes using a program, not "changing" a program. Maybe there are directives that specifically state that the box should be left unchecked. In that case, OK, but say so. Don't try to say that it means that you are "changing the program".
This, both the attitude and language, do not actually surprise me. Years ago I worked on kiosk type machines that had to operate in a wide range of jurisdictions, some of which had validation requirements that were tied to (device+configuration) pairs. So if you wanted to have your machine used with both the option checked on and off you had to get it validated twice, which could be costly and time consuming. Even if it was a soft configuration change (as opposed to a DIP or FOB) it was still considered altering the program since it changed the execution path and switched sections on and off.

Regulators varied widely on what counted, but this particular one really does not surprise me. Well, it kinda surprises me since voting machines have traditionally been held to very low standards.



User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 7172
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#744

Post by RVInit » Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:37 pm

neeneko wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:18 pm
RVInit wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:02 am
I read that article and have one comment to make. Checking a box does NOT change a program. It changes the value of a variable in a program. And, as long as the program was tested, that is not a problem. A proper testing of that program would have tested what happens when the box is checked and what happens when the box is not checked. And, as long as the results in both cases - checked and unchecked - is as intended, then checking or unchecking the box is not problematic and absolutely does not constitute "changing the program". As far as any other issues go, I have no opinion. But trying to equate using a program with writing or changing a program is absolutely disingenuous - or ignorant at the very least. Checking a box constitutes using a program, not "changing" a program. Maybe there are directives that specifically state that the box should be left unchecked. In that case, OK, but say so. Don't try to say that it means that you are "changing the program".
This, both the attitude and language, do not actually surprise me. Years ago I worked on kiosk type machines that had to operate in a wide range of jurisdictions, some of which had validation requirements that were tied to (device+configuration) pairs. So if you wanted to have your machine used with both the option checked on and off you had to get it validated twice, which could be costly and time consuming. Even if it was a soft configuration change (as opposed to a DIP or FOB) it was still considered altering the program since it changed the execution path and switched sections on and off.

Regulators varied widely on what counted, but this particular one really does not surprise me. Well, it kinda surprises me since voting machines have traditionally been held to very low standards.
I hate to keep this kind of discussion in this thread, but it sounds to me as if the program takes a digital image of the ballot if the box is checked and doesn't take a digital image if the box isn't checked. I would think that before the program is deployed it would have been tested to see if every ballot that is fed while the box is checked has a corresponding digital image and that no digital image would exist for any ballot fed while the box is unchecked. I would agree there would have to be some mechanism for setting the checkbox and making sure the box isn't unchecked by someone during the day, but I would be surprised if that requires an actual programmer to be on site. I guess more power to them if they sold a program that requires the customer to call them to check a box. $$$$$ Hmmmm maybe I should change my approach to some things. :lol:


"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10069
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#745

Post by Kendra » Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:38 pm



Ugh.



User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1380
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#746

Post by neeneko » Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:45 pm

RVInit wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:37 pm
I hate to keep this kind of discussion in this thread, but it sounds to me as if the program takes a digital image of the ballot if the box is checked and doesn't take a digital image if the box isn't checked. I would think that before the program is deployed it would have been tested to see if every ballot that is fed while the box is checked has a corresponding digital image and that no digital image would exist for any ballot fed while the box is unchecked. I would agree there would have to be some mechanism for setting the checkbox and making sure the box isn't unchecked by someone during the day, but I would be surprised if that requires an actual programmer to be on site. I guess more power to them if they sold a program that requires the customer to call them to check a box. $$$$$ Hmmmm maybe I should change my approach to some things. :lol:
Off Topic
You are thinking like a programmer instead of a regulator or underwriter ^_~

Without knowing the specifics of how they handle things down there (my work involved machines with the potential for grey market gambling, so lower standards than gambling machines but higher than arcade ones, and regulators could get VERY testy about various options that changed code paths) the manufacturer probably did indeed do their own internal testing, but might not have gone through the process and paperwork to have their machines used in that configuration in that region.

It is kinda like getting UL listed, even if it is a small change it can restart the whole process over, which is a pain they might have decided to just not bother with.



User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 7172
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#747

Post by RVInit » Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:59 pm

neeneko wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:45 pm
RVInit wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:37 pm
I hate to keep this kind of discussion in this thread, but it sounds to me as if the program takes a digital image of the ballot if the box is checked and doesn't take a digital image if the box isn't checked. I would think that before the program is deployed it would have been tested to see if every ballot that is fed while the box is checked has a corresponding digital image and that no digital image would exist for any ballot fed while the box is unchecked. I would agree there would have to be some mechanism for setting the checkbox and making sure the box isn't unchecked by someone during the day, but I would be surprised if that requires an actual programmer to be on site. I guess more power to them if they sold a program that requires the customer to call them to check a box. $$$$$ Hmmmm maybe I should change my approach to some things. :lol:
Off Topic
You are thinking like a programmer instead of a regulator or underwriter ^_~

Without knowing the specifics of how they handle things down there (my work involved machines with the potential for grey market gambling, so lower standards than gambling machines but higher than arcade ones, and regulators could get VERY testy about various options that changed code paths) the manufacturer probably did indeed do their own internal testing, but might not have gone through the process and paperwork to have their machines used in that configuration in that region.

It is kinda like getting UL listed, even if it is a small change it can restart the whole process over, which is a pain they might have decided to just not bother with.
True, but I still think I might need to rethink some things. ($$) :lol:


"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
Skip Intro
Posts: 3230
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:12 pm

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#748

Post by Skip Intro » Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:12 pm



In the Trump era anything is true if enough people believe it.

User avatar
GhostOfSolomon
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:44 pm
Location: Free State

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#749

Post by GhostOfSolomon » Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:16 pm



One must not accept any doctrine from reverence, but first try it as gold is tried by fire.

#IngloriousBastard
#Wolverine

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9410
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Alabama US Senate: Special Election December 12, 2017

#750

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:30 pm

From the alternet article linked above:
“The only Defendants to this case—Secretary of State John Merrill and a member of his staff—do not have authority to make changes to voting machines or to require local officials to do so,” the state’s brief said. “It [Monday’s earlier court order] purports to order Counties, which are not parties, to take action that the Secretary believes is impossible to complete before the election and which will disrupt the election. The order will cause confusion among local election officials who are not party to this suit and who will be unsure of their obligations.”

Chris Sautter, a Washington-based lawyer specializing in election law who helped the Alabama-based legal team and plaintiffs, said Merrill’s argument was plainly “disingenuous” and designed to sabotage the necessary steps to ensure the full public record in Tuesday’s election will not be destroyed.

At issue in this case is the simple fact that Merrill and his elections staff refused to tell county election offices to check one box in the software running the scanners that will read the ink-marked paper ballots and tabulate the vote Tuesday. Everything else cited by Merrill’s attorneys is a legalistic sideshow distracting from that basic fact.
...
“The voting machines are under the authority of the Probate Judges, not the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State is not party to the contracts between Probate Judges and ES&S to maintain and program the voting machines,” the brief said. “To change a machine’s program would require a third-party vendor, ES&S, to go to 2000 machines around the state.”
Reading that, I'm entirely unsurprised that the order was almost immediately stayed by the Supreme Court. That argument is, at least from a purely legal perspective, anything but "disingenuous." What is disingenuous, IMO, is Sautter's evasion the fact that the plaintiffs in the case do seem to have sued the wrong parties, and were therefore asking the Secretary of State to do something not within the Secretary of State's authority.

The injunction is available online. The injunction itself acknowledges that the Secretary of State "is alleged to be an improper party," doesn't address the question of whether the Secretary of State actually is a proper party, and instead justifies the injunction on the basis of the "nominal resources and cost" required to "send a communication through a system that already exists and is routinely used." But the content of the communication the court ordered sent read, "All counties...are hereby ORDERED to set their voting machines..." (caps in original).

So the court, without first determining if the Secretary of State was an appropriate party to the suit or if the Secretary of State had the authority to order the counties to set voting machines to do anything, ordered the SoS to order the counties to set their machines.

I'm unsurprised that the order was stayed. The ultimate recipients of the order - the counties - weren't part of the proceedings, so the court very probably lacked jurisdiction to directly order them to do anything. Indirectly ordering the counties to save ballots by ordering the Secretary of State to order them to do so is only possible if the Secretary of State independently has the authority to issue such an order. The court didn't even attempt to resolve that question before ordering the SoS to issue that order.

I'd have have to do at least a couple of hours of research to be sure, but if I was a law clerk to one of the justices on the AL Supreme Court, I could easily see myself advising the justice to concur with the stay.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

Post Reply

Return to “U.S. Senate”