I’ve not done a bit of googling and fact-checking here, it’s too late, but Kathleen’s got links you can follow. In brief, from her post:

the main venture capitalist backing both Diebold and ES&S, the two primary manufacturers of computerized voting machines, is Howard Ahmanson, a Christian Reconstructionist who has said openly that he has the goal of imposing Biblical law on the US.

Yee-ha!


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “digital voting v. trustworthy

  1. Eirik

    Scary stuff, this – Salon had a story on this a while ago, as well. I don’t know if you’ve heard this before, but actually there’s a brilliant Australian alternative to the American system. Wired covered it in depth in november last year – http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,61045,00.html . What makes eVACS (Electronic Voting and Counting System) a vast improvement on the commercial US systems, is the fact that it’s based on Open Source software. Anyone can download the voting machine source code (from http://www.elections.act.gov.au/Elecvote.html ) and check it for bugs and possible back doors. According to Wired, one Aussie academic did actually spot a serious bug, which goes to show that the system works.

    Sooner or later we will have to run large-scale electronic voting trials here in Norway as well. Perhaps we should make a case for using a translated/localized version of eVACS? 🙂

  2. Jill

    Oh yes! No, I didnn’t know that, Eirik, thanks! Now that’s a really important point: democracy should be transparent, and open source voting software’s a very sensible idea.

    Insane, the money made on elections some places.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.