<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;voting&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:58:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Double Fine's Tim Schafer On Openness And His New Game Project With Humble Bundle</title>
<dc:creator>Leigh Beadon</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121119/13151621095/double-fines-tim-schafer-openness-his-new-game-project-with-humble-bundle.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121119/13151621095/double-fines-tim-schafer-openness-his-new-game-project-with-humble-bundle.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Today, the always innovative Humble Bundle launched yet another great new project. This time they've teamed up with Tim Schafer, whom some may remember as the founder of Double Fine and the creator of their <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120208/23505717705/people-rushing-to-give-hundreds-thousands-dollars-just-hours-brand-new-adventure-game.shtml">insanely successful Kickstarter campaign</a> (and others may remember him as the creator of several classic adventure games). The project is a twist on the standard Humble Bundle system: instead of paying what you want for a collection of existing games, <a href="http://www.humblebundle.com/double-fine" target="_blank">contributors get to vote on various game ideas from the Double Fine team to decide which ones get prototyped</a>. The whole development process will then be live-streamed, and contributors will be able to download the prototypes at the end. The ideas themselves come from a feverous internal brainstorming process called the Amnesia Fortnight, the secrets of which are being revealed to the public, as best (and most entertainingly) explained in the video:</p>
<center><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WTl2V3EDJik" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>
<p>It's rare, maybe unprecedented, to see gamers brought into the development process on such a wide scale and at such an intimate level. Though participation takes the form of an single vote, you can bet that people who get involved will have <em>lots</em> of feedback and questions, and probably a few demands, as the process continues &mdash; which, in addition to forging a strong connection with fans, could actually be kind of scary. Today I spoke briefly with Tim Schafer to ask more about the thinking behind the project and his expectations for where it might go. For him, the key revelation from the Kickstarter campaign was less about identifying demand for a new adventure game, and more about discovering that a more transparent development process can be a really positive experience:</p>
<blockquote><em>We're building off of one of the things we learned from that project, which is that it's okay to open the doors. We've had this Willy Wonka &#038; The Chocolate Factory thing for many years, and the Kickstarter changed all that.
<br /><br />...<br /><br />
We let people see the making of the game and realized it's okay. You think people will laugh at us or they'll judge us for the work or they'll get mad when we cut something from the game. ... We realized that the players are smarter than people are giving them credit for.</em></blockquote>   
<p>He expressed some <em>slight</em> anxiety at the idea of handing the choice of games over to the public, but it was far outweighed by curiosity:</p>
<blockquote><em>It's really interesting. Usually I pick, usually I deal with the deciding. I think I just wanted to try a different way to see. I like getting my way some of the time, but not all of the time. If you don't have any sort of agent of chaos or wild card then you never have any sort of evolution of ideas, and fresh blood. ... I really want to see what the people at large have to say, to see if it's different.</em></blockquote>
<p>Similarly, he noted that live-streaming the development process would be a real dose of reality for some gamers, and he's interested to see how they react. While there's plenty of fun stuff to show, like the Art Jams where they flesh out a game's visuals, there's also the painful side, like the budget meetings where exciting ideas get reluctantly cut. But such things are necessary, and as he notes, displaying them helps to <em>humanize</em> the process &mdash; which is something we talk about a lot when it comes to connecting with fans and being <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120210/02273417726/how-being-more-open-human-awesome-can-save-anyone-worried-about-making-money-entertainment.shtml">open, human and awesome</a>.</p>
<p>It's going to be great to see the results of this team-up. Schafer started his career at Lucasfilm Games when secrecy and control were the orders of the day, and developers tried all sorts of wacky schemes to prevent piracy &mdash; that's what he was used to, and he credits the Humble Bundle with helping to inspire a different outlook:</p>
<blockquote><em>Besides the fact that they bring a lot of smaller, lesser known games to light, a lot of what's inspiring is the business model.
<br /><br />
Keeping things secret, hoarding information, protecting your copyright. That's just what I was used to, and Humble Bundle says let it go, open it up, let people have it for a penny or a dollar, let people pay what they want and give all the money to charity if they want.
<br /><br />...<br /><br />
You can't have this 100% watertight, airtight grip on that stuff. You have to make other people not want to pirate, make it easy for them, and respect them enough to let them choose. People respond to not being treated like criminals.</em></blockquote>
<p>If you want to get in on the project and cast your vote for which games get developed, you can do so <a href="http://www.humblebundle.com/double-fine" target="_blank">over at the Humble Bundle site</a> &mdash; there are also two existing prototypes of other games for contributors to download right away.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121119/13151621095/double-fines-tim-schafer-openness-his-new-game-project-with-humble-bundle.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121119/13151621095/double-fines-tim-schafer-openness-his-new-game-project-with-humble-bundle.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20121119/13151621095/double-fines-tim-schafer-openness-his-new-game-project-with-humble-bundle.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-fight-like-a-dairy-farmer</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121119/13151621095</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 6 Nov 2012 11:02:46 PST</pubDate>
<title>Wisconsin Warns: If You Tweet Photos Of Your Completed Ballot, You Can Go To Jail</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121106/09260420947/wisconsin-warns-if-you-tweet-photos-your-completed-ballot-you-can-go-to-jail.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121106/09260420947/wisconsin-warns-if-you-tweet-photos-your-completed-ballot-you-can-go-to-jail.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's election day, of course, and with that comes some amount of civic pride among a number of voters.  That's a good thing, for the most part, and in this era of social media and people sharing photos and videos about their lives, plenty of people are sharing imagery of their own ballot.  Perfectly reasonable, right?  Well, yes, except when that runs into laws designed to keep your ballots secret.  There are, of course, good intentions behind such laws.  But mixed in with <a href="http://www.citmedialaw.org/documenting-vote-2012" target="_blank">all those local laws</a> concerning camera usage inside a polling place are some that could cause trouble for people doing something quite ordinary.  For example, it appears that people in Wisconsin who decide to Instagram/Tweet/Facebook an image of their ballots, have <a href="http://allthingsd.com/20121106/if-you-want-to-stay-out-of-jail-dont-instagram-your-ballot/?mod=atdtweet" target="_blank">committed a class I felony, election fraud</a>.  And this doesn't appear to just be a law that the state is going to ignore either.  It's been <a href="http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/Wisconsin_GAB_Is_Felony_To_Tweet_Photo_Of_Your_Ballot_154196315.html" target="_blank">issuing warnings</a> to people that they could face felony charges if they do post those photos.  Undoubtedly, many will be unaware that they're committing election fraud when they thought they were just showing civic pride.  One hopes that officials in Wisconsin, and other states, take the context into account before moving forward with any legal responses.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121106/09260420947/wisconsin-warns-if-you-tweet-photos-your-completed-ballot-you-can-go-to-jail.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121106/09260420947/wisconsin-warns-if-you-tweet-photos-your-completed-ballot-you-can-go-to-jail.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121106/09260420947/wisconsin-warns-if-you-tweet-photos-your-completed-ballot-you-can-go-to-jail.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>civic-pride-and-handcuffs</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121106/09260420947</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:03:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The Internet Savvy Appear To Agree On A Lot Of Policy Ideas</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120926/00023720515/internet-savvy-appear-to-agree-lot-policy-ideas.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120926/00023720515/internet-savvy-appear-to-agree-lot-policy-ideas.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We were just talking about how the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120919/12033220432/can-internet-vote-be-next-important-voting-bloc.shtml">"internet bloc"</a> of voters may be an important new constituent for politicians to be aware of -- and I've been wondering if there's evidence that the bloc does not, in fact, fall into typical partisan classifications.  Alex Howard conveniently <a href="http://gov20.govfresh.com/popvox-shares-its-top-50-bills-for-the-112th-congress-sopa-is-1/" target="_blank">points us</a> to the news that Popvox, one of a number of excellent sites for discussing proposed Congressional legislation, has put out a blog post and infographic <a href="http://www.popvox.com/blog/2012/top-50-bills-112th-congress/" target="_blank">about the top 50 bills, by interest on Popvox, for the 112th Congress</a>.
<br /><br />
I imagine that it will surprise approximately none of you that SOPA was the most popular bill on the site (PIPA came in fifth).  And while there may be something interesting to talk about in terms of which bills were most popular, something else struck me that seems a lot more remarkable: look at how many of the top bills had overwhelming support for or against the bill.  Nearly all of the bills had a viewpoint that was very strongly in favor of the bill or opposed to the bills.  Looking down the list, you have to get to the 7th bill, before you even have one where the majority viewpoint wasn't over 90% (and even on that bill, it's 88%).  You don't get any real "split" opinion until bill number 9, <a href="http://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr3" target="_blank">HR 3</a>, or the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion" bill that hits on a high profile issue that is usually split down partisan lines -- and you can see the for/against are much closer: 56% for, 44% opposed.  But that's a rare case. 
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/58HD9"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/58HD9.png" width=560 /></a>
</center>
If we set the cutoff on "in strong agreement" and "contested" at bills where you had over 70% on one side or the other, of the top 50 bills, only 11 fall into the contested category.  Meanwhile, 20 of the top 50 bills had <i>over 90% agreement</i>, including each of the top 6 bills.  This makes me wonder if sites like these are helping to expose what "the internet bloc" really feels about certain issues.  Of course, there are some caveats that should be made clear.  It's entirely possible that these votes are skewed, and not a representative sample.  For example, if someone who was strongly in favor of, or strongly opposed to, one of these bills points a lot of others to the Popvox bill page, you could see how it would likely lead to getting a lot of votes in one direction.  But you would then think that communities on the flip side would also send people to the same bill page to vote the other side.
<br /><br />
Either way, it does seem clear that these folks -- who are quite likely more internet savvy <i>and</i> engaged on political issues -- have pretty strong feelings on these topics, and the views aren't in dispute, but strongly agreed upon by a large segment of those internet savvy folks.  It seems like an opportunity for a politician to recognize this and really start focusing on supporting what the "internet bloc" has to say...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120926/00023720515/internet-savvy-appear-to-agree-lot-policy-ideas.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120926/00023720515/internet-savvy-appear-to-agree-lot-policy-ideas.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120926/00023720515/internet-savvy-appear-to-agree-lot-policy-ideas.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-internet-bloc</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120926/00023720515</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:33:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Can 'The Internet Vote' Be The Next Important Voting Bloc?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120919/12033220432/can-internet-vote-be-next-important-voting-bloc.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120919/12033220432/can-internet-vote-be-next-important-voting-bloc.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I recently talked about how the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120906/08153820301/your-cynicism-about-lobbyists-only-helps-lobbyists-win.shtml">cynicism</a> of the "internet generation" is only helping to keep broken systems in place.  I recognize that many people feel that their vote is useless, and think that voting for "the lesser of two evils" is not worth it.  I also have sympathy for those who argue that not voting may, in fact, be better than voting-while-uninformed.  But none of that really means that votes don't matter.  They absolutely do matter, in a big and important way -- especially when you can bring together a large group of people who really do understand the issues, and don't want to just get pushed around by lobbyists and crony capitalism.
<br /><br />
The folks at Fight for the Future and Personal Democracy Media have teamed up to create a website called, <a href="http://internetvotes.org/" target="_blank">The Internet Votes</a>, hoping to get more people -- especially internet savvy people -- registered to vote.  They've even set up this nice widget:
<center>
<link href="http://voterreg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/widget/include.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet"><script src="//widget.internetvotes.org/widget/include.js" type="text/javascript" async="async" defer="defer"></script><div id="voterreg_placeholder"></div>
</link></center>
This kind of thing matters.  As we noted in our "cynicism" post, when a large group of voters speak out, it <i>really does make a difference</i>.  It's only when they don't speak out and don't make their views known that the special interests can take over.  This latest effort is an outgrowth of the fight against SOPA and PIPA, and if we want to make sure that the RIAAs/MPAAs of the world can't try to push such things through again in the future, then the internet savvy crowd has to make it clear that their vote can and does matter.  This isn't about who to vote for -- but being willing to speak up with an informed voice.  If you don't like either of the major party choices, there are alternatives as well, and those can make an important statement.
<br /><br />
Along those lines, there's an article over at HuffPo by Michael Beckerman, arguing that now is the time to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-beckerman/the-internet-vote_b_1893728.html?" target="_blank">make the "internet bloc" the next important voting bloc</a>:
<blockquote><i>
Campaign strategists and pundits are always trying to predict the newest or most important political demographic groups. For a long time, it was seniors. That was followed by the dawn of the "soccer mom" and lately there has been a lot of talk about "NASCAR dads." But the strongest untapped political factor these days is rarely mentioned, despite representing a force central to the lives of nearly every American -- the Internet.
</i></blockquote>
Indeed.  Beckerman, by the way, discusses the importance of such a voting bloc in his article describing the official launch of <a href="http://internetassociation.org/" target="_blank">the Internet Association</a>, a group that we discussed -- somewhat <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120725/09383519829/sopapipa-wakes-up-internet-giants-to-realize-they-need-to-be-more-engaged-dc.shtml">skeptically</a> when it was announced a few months ago.  Beckerman and the folks who make up the Internet Association seem to be taking the concerns raised to heart, and have made it quite clear that a key element of its platform is to be a voice for internet users.
<blockquote><i>
The three planks of the association's advocacy platform are: protecting Internet freedom; fostering innovation and economic growth; and empowering users.	The unique nature of the Internet, free from government control, has unleashed unprecedented entrepreneurialism, creativity and innovation, far beyond imagination. But what about tomorrow? No one can predict what innovations will happen next. But we do know that the Internet's decentralized and open model has been the catalyst that has powered this information revolution.
</i></blockquote>
We've pointed out a few times that we worry when the future <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20120425/01215118644/hacking-society-its-time-to-measure-unmeasurable.shtml">has no lobbyists</a>, so as the internet itself rises up and makes itself heard, hopefully a group like the Internet Association can really help.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120919/12033220432/can-internet-vote-be-next-important-voting-bloc.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120919/12033220432/can-internet-vote-be-next-important-voting-bloc.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120919/12033220432/can-internet-vote-be-next-important-voting-bloc.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>make-it-so</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120919/12033220432</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:45:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>SXSW Panel On The New Era Of Tech &#038; Innovation Advocacy</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/02140820089/sxsw-panel-new-era-tech-innovation-advocacy.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/02140820089/sxsw-panel-new-era-tech-innovation-advocacy.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's that time of the year again when SXSW does its annual "panelpicker" effort.  I'm on one of the proposed panels, put together by Engine Advocacy, discussing <a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/450" target="_blank">the new era of tech advocacy</a> by looking at the political landscape after the 2012 elections and how startups, entrepreneurs, open innovation advocates and the tech community can better engage in the political process to avoid disasters being pushed by legacy incumbents.  The panel will include myself, Mike McGeary from Engine, Elizabeth Stark from both Stanford and StartX and Mark Colwell from Senator Jerry Moran's office.  If you're reading this, you know who I am, and those other three were all important players in helping to stop SOPA earlier this year.  Feel free to vote and hopefully our panel will get picked.
<br /><br />
There are, as always, plenty of other great panels to check out as well.  I haven't had a chance to go through them all, but here are a few others that would be great, if you're looking for ones to vote for:
<ul>
<li>A panel on <a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/4623" target="_blank">copyright and disruptive technologies</a> involving three true experts on the subject: Andrew Bridges, Margot Kaminski and Wendy Seltzer.
</li><li>A discussion between two of the key Congressional staffers who (from opposite ends of the political spectrum) helped team up to defeat SOPA: Jayme White from Senator Wyden's office and Laurent Crenshaw from Rep. Issa's office, talking about <a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/6101">Congress and the internet</a>, and how to prevent future SOPAs from happening.
</li><li>A discussion asking <a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/3754" target="_blank">if the internet has become America's "third party"</a> starring some more of the key folks who led the fight against SOPA (including both Colwell and Crenshaw already mentioned, but also Maura Corbett and Marvin Ammori).
</li><li> Rob Pegoraro talking about <a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/6654" target="_blank">why the media doesn't understand tech policy issues</a> very well.
</li><li>A panel on <a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/6054" target="_blank">the future of internet rights</a>.
</li><li>This one, the title says it all: <a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/3709" target="_blank">It's Reddit's World. We Just Live In It.</a>
</li><li>Gary Shapiro on <a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/3917" target="_blank">"ninja innovation"</a>
</li><li><a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/6600" target="_blank">In Defense of Mashups</a> looks interesting in that, among others, it would have Eric from Padmapper on the panel, and he's currently being sued by Craigslist for "mashing up" Craigslist with maps to make Craigslist more useful.
</li><li>I learned a while back that when the Bomb Squad/Public Enemy's Hank Shocklee speaks, you should listen, so vote for his panel (also with Julie Samuels at EFF, Michael Petricone at CEA and Paul Geller from Grooveshark) on <a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/5299" target="_blank">making free content work</a> for fans and for artists.
</li><li>Similarly, former rockstar, now brilliant business strategist Dave Allen is always worth following, especially when he'll be on a panel with Brian Zisk talking about <a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/4862" target="_blank">music tech startups</a>.
</li><li>Soundcloud and Wattpad together, talking about the rise of <a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/4323" target="_blank">collaborative content creation</a>?  Count me in.
</li><li>Nick Grossman has some very cool ideas about connected innovation, and he wants to <a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/6647" target="_blank">talk about a bunch of them</a> at SXSW.
</li><li>Here's an interesting one on learning from China in terms of how <a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/vote/4000" target="_blank">imitation can help you innovate</a> too.
</li></ul>
There are lots, lots more, but these were a few that caught my eye.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/02140820089/sxsw-panel-new-era-tech-innovation-advocacy.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/02140820089/sxsw-panel-new-era-tech-innovation-advocacy.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/02140820089/sxsw-panel-new-era-tech-innovation-advocacy.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>vote</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120818/02140820089</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:20:19 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Strange: Vote Against Freeing Up Orphan Works Achieves 113% Turnout In EU Committee</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120315/08382118115/strange-vote-against-freeing-up-orphan-works-achieves-113-turnout-eu-committee.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120315/08382118115/strange-vote-against-freeing-up-orphan-works-achieves-113-turnout-eu-committee.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>One of the unresolved problems of copyright is how to deal with <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100712/02405410173.shtml">huge numbers</a> of orphan works -- creations still in copyright, but whose owners can't be traced to give permissions that may be necessary for re-use.  The European Parliament's JURI committee met recently to vote on a new report on possible permitted uses of orphan works, prepared by the Polish Member of the European Parliament, Lidia Geringer de Oedenberg.
</p><p>
As Rick Falkvinge writes, <a href="http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/14/european-parliament-blocks-copyright-reform-with-113-voter-turnout/">things didn't go too well for those hoping to free up orphan works for modern use</a>:
<i><blockquote>the copyright industry lobby won key points in the voting procedure with 14 votes against reform and 12 in favor of it, according to the just-published protocol.</blockquote></i>
End of story, you might think.  But <a href="http://tacd-ip.org/archives/602">Geringer de Oedenberg noted something strange with the voting</a>:
<i><blockquote>During the vote I was making precise notes as to the balance of votes in favour and against to my crucial amendments.
<br /><br />
It came to me as a surprise that for my Compromise Amendments 20 check vote announced by the Chair was 14 to 12 which gives us 26 Members!
<br /><br />
Considering that we only have 24 Members in Juri Committee and according to the protocol only 23 were present this result is confusing and calls for clarification.
<br /><br />
Similar situation appears on Amendment 71 (Ms. Gallo and Mr. Borys) which pass with the result announced 13 to 12 what gives as 25 Members and my Amendment 32 which fall 13 to 11 -24 Members.</blockquote></i>
So the question has to be asked: did the copyright industry lobby really win, or was there some miscounting along the line?  To avoid the impression of anything improper going on here, it's vital that those votes be taken again.  After all, as Falkvinge points out:
<i><blockquote>The final kicker here is that the 113-per-cent voter turnout happened in the Legal Affairs committee (JURI), which has the responsibility of safeguarding the integrity and trustworthiness of the legal framework as a whole in Europe.</blockquote></i>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120315/08382118115/strange-vote-against-freeing-up-orphan-works-achieves-113-turnout-eu-committee.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120315/08382118115/strange-vote-against-freeing-up-orphan-works-achieves-113-turnout-eu-committee.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120315/08382118115/strange-vote-against-freeing-up-orphan-works-achieves-113-turnout-eu-committee.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>are-they-sure?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120315/08382118115</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:50:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>It's SXSW Voting Time</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110815/23350515539/its-sxsw-voting-time.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110815/23350515539/its-sxsw-voting-time.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's that time of the year again, where the <a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/" target="_blank">SXSW PanelPicker</a> opens up for public voting.  This year, I just pitched one session, for SXSWfilm, which I'm pretty excited about if it gets chosen.  Rather than a typical <i>panel</i>, it's going to be <a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/11701" target="_blank">an open brainstorming session for filmmakers</a>, trying to come up with cool plans to better "connect with fans" and give those fans a "reason to buy."  I'm really excited about the team that's ready to take part in this workshop, as they've got a ton of experience and smarts in this field, including filmmaker/author <a href="http://www.jonreiss.com/main_bio.html" target="_blank">Jon Reiss</a> (who beyond his long career in film has also written books like <i>Think Outside the Box Office</i> and regularly holds similar workshops), indie film marketer <a href="http://www.shericandler.com/" target="_blank">Sheri Candler</a> (who is also writing a book with Reiss entitled <i><a href="http://www.sellingyourfilm.com/" target="_blank">Selling Your Film Without Selling Your Soul</a></i>) and filmmaker/consultant <a href="http://infdist.com/" target="_blank">Ross Pruden</a>, who (among other things) runs the #infdist panel on Twitter, which is an ongoing conversation on how to better connect with fans and give people reasons to buy.  If we get picked, it should be a blast.
<br /><br />
Separately, while I didn't organize it, Alex Wright was kind enough to add me to his panel on <a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/10964" target="_blank">Creative Business Models Beyond Copyright</a> for SXSWinteractive.  The idea behind this panel is to get people -- especially smaller businesses or those just starting out -- to think outside the box about alternative business models that go beyond just relying on copyright.  Once again, I imagine it'll be a fun discussion.  If you'd like to see me speak at SXSW, please vote for those two panels.  Thanks!
<br /><br />
Some other potentially interesting panels (I have no association with any of these, they just looked interesting scrolling through the list):
<ul>
<li><a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/11636" target="_blank">Surviving Lulz: Behind the Scenes of LulzSec</a> (this one looks fascinating)
</li><li><a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/11210" target="_blank">Set Your Content Free (It's Harder Than You Think)</a>
</li><li><a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/14024" target="_blank">The Systematic Undoing of Copyright Trolls</a>
</li><li><a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/10746" target="_blank">Appetite for Enforcement: IP Policy Evolves</a> 
</li><li><a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/9496" target="_blank">3D Printing: Not Everyone Will Be Excited</a>
</li><li><a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/13222" target="_blank">Hey, That's Mine! Who Owns Content?</a>
</li><li><a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/11751" target="_blank">Thank You, Wow &#038; Done: The 3 only metrics you need</a>
</li><li><a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/11572" target="_blank">"Now there's music cloud, where's movie cloud?"</a>
</li><li><a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/9617" target="_blank">Tricking People Into Reading Again</a>
</li><li><a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/9275" target="_blank">The Revolution Will Be Published</a> (by Richard Nash, who you should be paying attention to)
</li><li><a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/10801" target="_blank">Can Free Streaming Music Survive and Thrive?</a>
</li><li><a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/10218" target="_blank">Everything is a Remix, So Steal Like An Artist</a>
</li><li><a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/11548" target="_blank">Vote4Geeks: Why Techies Should Run for Office</a>
</li><li><a href="http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/14030" target="_blank">Promoting the Innovation Economy</a> (Rob Pegoraro is always interesting)
</li></ul>
I'm sure there are plenty of others, but those are the ones that caught my eye...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110815/23350515539/its-sxsw-voting-time.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110815/23350515539/its-sxsw-voting-time.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110815/23350515539/its-sxsw-voting-time.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>if-you'd-like-to-see-me-speak</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110815/23350515539</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 08:32:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Should Young People Have Their Votes Count More?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110516/03545614281/should-young-people-have-their-votes-count-more.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110516/03545614281/should-young-people-have-their-votes-count-more.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/glynmoody/status/70043483112620032" target="_blank">Glyn Moody</a> points us to an article by Paul Sterne, that feels like it might be a Swiftian-style satire, but could just as likely be serious, suggesting that we get rid of "one man, one vote" and switch to <a href="http://www.groundreport.com/Politics/End-One-Man-One-Vote-Shift-to-Age-Weighted-Voting/2939003" target="_blank">age-weighted voting</a>.  At first I thought he meant giving older people more weight, but it's actually the opposite:
<blockquote><i>
Instead, America should implement weighted voting to make voting more objective and fair, and give the young more power, because the consequences of political decisions will affect them the longest. Weighted voting would restore power to twenty and thirty year olds, where it resided before the advent of medical science. With the aid of computers, it would be easy to give everyone a Voting Score, just like we all have a credit score.
</i></blockquote>
He then goes through and suggests a way to calculate this voting score, which would take into effect the level of political understanding, voter participation rates and the amount of time that people would have to "live with the consequences" (i.e., longer if you're younger).  He weights the whole thing out and comes out with the following weights:
<center>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/QIJXY.jpg" />
<br><br>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Tu8f1.jpg" />
</center>
Yes, this would mean that 30-year-olds would have incredibly powerful votes.  I would imagine that might distort the system itself.  Since part of it is based on historical voting rates for each age group, if you give one age group a much higher voting power based on historical voting rates, you're not taking into account that the increased power of their vote will likely bring out much greater numbers of voters.  People who complain that their one vote doesn't count for much, might feel differently if their vote actually counts 7 times.
<br><br>
Also, as he notes, this system means at the age of 80 you lose your right to vote (and, if you are older than that, your vote somehow counts <i>against</i> you?).  Pushing me towards believing this is pure satire is the statement, "But then again haven't these folks beaten the odds and outlived all their friends and they shouldn't be voting anyway."  However, is there perhaps some value in the larger concept?  There definitely are some issues that are generational, in which younger people know that, as they get older, public sentiment is likely to finally shift over (civil rights being a big one), and I wonder if a voting system like this might speed up some changes that could be good.  At the same time, it seems like there could be some pretty serious negative consequences for older folks.  While they may be out of touch on some issues, does that really mean we should deny them the right to vote?  Doesn't seem worth it.
<br><br>
Still, in a world where many people consider one man/one vote sacred, are there better ways to handle things?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110516/03545614281/should-young-people-have-their-votes-count-more.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110516/03545614281/should-young-people-have-their-votes-count-more.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110516/03545614281/should-young-people-have-their-votes-count-more.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>crazy-ideas-that-might-not-be-crazy?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110516/03545614281</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:53:12 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Wisconsin County That 'Found' Lost Votes Apparently Has Major Voting Irregularities For Years...</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/23002413918/wisconsin-county-that-found-lost-votes-apparently-has-major-voting-irregularities-years.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/23002413918/wisconsin-county-that-found-lost-votes-apparently-has-major-voting-irregularities-years.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may recall a little over a week ago we wrote about the Wisconsin county that magically <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110408/01441913818/14000-unsaved-votes-suddenly-found-wisconsin.shtml">found 14,000 votes</a> in a recent (highly contested) election, after the very partisan County Clerk -- who had just been questioned for questionable methods of collecting election data -- said that she had "failed to save the results" in her original report.  While this followup story is now about a week old, someone just sent it over to us.  Apparently that particular county, Waukesha County, has a <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/11/965994/-%28updated%29-Waukesha-voting-irregularities-go-back-to-2004" target="_blank">rather stunning history of voting irregularities</a>, including having an <i>astounding</i> and totally unprecedented 97.63% voter turnout rate in 2004:
<blockquote><i>
Apparently in 2004 the polls in Waukesha were teeming with voters as the Waukesha County Clerk's office showed a 97.63% turn out. No, that's not a typo. 97.63%
<br /><br />
<a href="http://www.waukeshacounty.gov/uploadedFiles/Media/List_Documents/County_Clerk/2004_Official_Election_Results/Summary_Report_Nov2_2004.lst">http://www.waukeshacounty.gov/...</a>
<br /><br />
Of the 236,642 registered voters in Waukesha on Nov 2, 2004 apparently 231,031 of them came out in a hint of rain and drizzle and did their civic duty.
<br /><br />
Just to put this in perspective, Australia has compulsory (mandatory) voting and their turnout is 95%.
</i></blockquote>
And it's not just voter turnout that's suspiciously high.  Voter registrations are unprecedented as well:
<blockquote><i>
In the 8 months leading into the 2004 Presidential Election there was a marginal 1.3% increase in the rolls netting about 3000 additional new voters. However in the 3 months after the election, which showed an anomalous 97.63% turn out, suddenly the rolls surged to the tune of almost 50,000 new voters and upped the rolls 20%. I suppose that's one way to even out a suspiciously high turn out.
<br /><br />
Furthermore, remember that first number I told you to hang on to? The 283,820 eligible voters in the county of Waukesha in July of 2004? This new surge in the voter rolls has now pushed total voter registration in Waukesha County <b>to 99.5% of elegible voters</b> being registered to vote by February of 2005.
</i></blockquote>
99.5% of eligible voters registered?  Wow.
<br /><br />
But, let's not stop there.  The blogger who did this research also dug up the official <a href="http://www.waukeshacounty.gov/uploadedFiles/Media/List_Documents/County_Clerk/2006_Official_Election_Results/Official_Election_Combined_Summary_Nov20_2006.LST" target="_blank">election results data</a> from the 2006 election in Waukesha County, and noticed that some of the elections appeared to have <i><b>more votes than ballots were cast</b></i> by a fairly large number:
<blockquote><i>
In the race for Governor/Lieutenant Governor there were a total of 176,112 votes cast. For Attorney General there were a total of 174,047 votes cast. And for Secretary of State there were a total 170,440 votes cast.
<br /><br />
So, look at the 3rd line of the top of that report...Total Ballots Cast: 156,804. So based on those numbers 20,000 extra votes were cast in the election that weren't actually accounted for in the ballots cast.
</i></blockquote>
To say the least, these numbers are pretty troubling if you believe in the integrity of democratic elections.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/23002413918/wisconsin-county-that-found-lost-votes-apparently-has-major-voting-irregularities-years.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/23002413918/wisconsin-county-that-found-lost-votes-apparently-has-major-voting-irregularities-years.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110415/23002413918/wisconsin-county-that-found-lost-votes-apparently-has-major-voting-irregularities-years.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well,-look-at-that</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110415/23002413918</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 4 Nov 2009 22:26:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Maryland Testing E-Voting System That Lets People Verify Their Votes Counted</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091104/1339256801.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091104/1339256801.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040608/0745219.shtml">many years</a>, David Chaum has been pushing for a voting system that he claims will be a lot more reliable.  Basically, after you vote, you get a coded number, and then after the election, you can go to an election website, punch in your code and make sure that your vote counted, and was for whom you meant to vote.  On top of this, there's a system for auditors to check to make sure that votes were counted accurately, with information released publicly so people can "audit" the election without being able to connect voters to their votes.  This system tends to generate a lot of controversy (though some of it appears to be from people who just don't like David Chaum, rather than because they really have a problem with his system).  However, the system hasn't been really tested in an actual US election... until now.  The municipal elections in Takoma Park, Maryland <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/scantegrity/" target="_blank">used the system</a>, despite the state recently signing a big deal with Diebold.  It's not clear how the overall election went yet -- or how many people actually checked their votes online (approximately 30% in an exit poll said they copied down the code).  However, it's good to see that some gov'ts are not just accepting what the big e-voting firms give them, and are willing to explore more sophisticated voting systems that aren't based on pure faith in the e-voting company to get the system right.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091104/1339256801.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091104/1339256801.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091104/1339256801.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>experimenting-away</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091104/1339256801</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 1 Sep 2009 14:33:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>How Not To Connect With Fans: Let Them Vote And Then Ignore The Vote</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090901/0332076071.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090901/0332076071.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Someone who prefers to remain anonymous sends in this example of how the band KISS tried and failed (miserably) in its attempt to "connect with fans."  Apparently the band held an online contest to get fans to vote for where KISS would perform -- calling it the "You Demand It Tour."  Well, people voted, and the second largest vote getter was Manchester, New Hampshire.  So what happened?  The band <a href="http://radiobase1.clearchannel.com/front/OpenContest.asp?Action=Login&#038;SurveyID=31103&#038;zx=201" target="_new">ignored the vote and booked a show in Boston instead</a>.  In response, some local radio folks are starting a petition to try to get the band to actually live up to its promise to go where fans demanded:
<blockquote><i>
Three months ago - when KISS launched their "You Demand It Tour", Buzz Lumpa's jumped all over it in an effort to bring KISS back to the Verizon Wireless Arena. The deal was that the band would rout their tour to the cities that wanted them most - and that meant the cities that cast the most votes. Manchester NH did just that - beating out EVERY major U.S. city! We cast more votes than New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and yes- Boston. Over 240 cities were vying for the band - and Manchester NH placed 2nd in the U.S.! And yet, when KISS announced their tour itinerary, Manchester NH was NOT on it. The band chose to play Boston instead. KISS lied to you.
</i></blockquote>
Of course, given Gene Simmons' comments on <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071115/150246.shtml">new business models</a> and the experiments of bands like Radiohead to better connect with fans (Simmons claimed it was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080617/2333571437.shtml">killing the recording industry</a>) perhaps this is no surprise.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090901/0332076071.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090901/0332076071.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090901/0332076071.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>nice-going-kiss</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090901/0332076071</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 04:33:53 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Technology Again Causes American Idol Controversy, Fingers Pointed At AT&#038;T</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090527/1059095030.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090527/1059095030.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Apparently the outcome of the latest season of American Idol caused some controversy when the contestant generally regarded as the underdog of the two finalists was crowned the winner, provoking an angry backlash from his rival's fans. Now, they're pointing the finger at AT&#038;T, alleging <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/business/media/27idol.html?partner=rss&#038;emc=rss">it helped skew the vote</a>. This isn't the first time telecommunications have caught this sort of flak, as it's been a regular occurrence during the show's run that people have faced <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20040517/0012235.shtml">jammed</a> phone lines when they've tried to vote. But this time, it's a little different. Apparently AT&#038;T reps were at a couple of viewing parties organized by fans of the winning contestant, Kris Allen, and brought along a bunch of phones with them -- since, of course, only people on AT&#038;T's wireless network can vote for the show's winner via text message. Then, the reps supposedly showed people at the parties how to "power text", or send in several votes at once. It seems unlikely that the votes spawned from the two parties were enough to tip the balance in Allen's favor, but the appearance of impropriety on the part of one of the show's major sponsors may be a bit more damaging.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090527/1059095030.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090527/1059095030.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090527/1059095030.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>newsworthy</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090527/1059095030</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:35:52 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Chinese Gov't Computer Problems May Force Chinese Citizens To Change Names</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090420/1903104588.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090420/1903104588.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I have to admit that I was among those who thought it was in incredibly poor taste and somewhat offensive when a Texas lawmaker recently suggested that Asian Americans with complex names should be required to <a href="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20090412_Texan_apologizes_for_remark_on_Asian_names.html" target="_new">change their names</a> to reduce confusions and problems with matching up names to voting rolls.  However, now it appears that <i>the same thing is happening in China</i> itself.  According to the NY Times, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/world/asia/21china.html?partner=rss&#038;emc=rss&#038;pagewanted=all" target="_new">the Chinese government is forcing people to change their names</a> in an effort to modernize its own ID database.  Apparently, the computer system being used can't handle some of the rarer Chinese characters, even though such characters are popular among some families as a way to give their children a distinct identity.  It still seems in poor taste and somewhat offensive, but still somewhat fascinating to compare the two stories.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090420/1903104588.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090420/1903104588.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090420/1903104588.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>funny-how-that-works</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090420/1903104588</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:47:14 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Kentucky Election Officials Arrested For Changing Votes On E-Voting Machines</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090319/2040534190.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090319/2040534190.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While there have been plenty of conspiracy theories over the years concerning e-voting machines, none have been particularly compelling.  The evidence looked like plenty of incompetence, with buggy machines that had huge security flaws that <i>could</i> be exploited -- but we hadn't heard of any cases of anyone actually being caught tampering with or trying to tamper with votes.  That isn't to say it didn't happen.  It's possible that it happened and the perpetrators weren't caught -- but it's a big leap from it "could" happen, to it "did" happen.  So, most of our coverage here has been very much on the bugs and the flaws, rather than any of the conspiracy theories that floated around.
<br><br>
However, it appears that a group of Kentucky election officials, the circuit court judge and the county clerk, <a href="http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S=10037216&nav=menu203_2" target="_new">were arrested for changing votes</a> in various elections between 2002 and 2006 on e-voting machines.  The <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7001" target="_new">details</a> suggest that there were two parts to the vote changing.  First, there was traditional vote buying -- where they paid people to vote in a certain way.  However, the second involved actually changing voters' votes on ES&S e-voting machines.
<br><br>
It didn't involve any hacking or direct security flaws -- but the elections officials made use of the confusing user interface and process of the e-voting machines to trick voters into leaving before their votes had been cast.  That's because there's a "vote" button, that some people (silly them!) assumed meant they actually <i>voted</i>.  Nope.  It turns out that just gets you to a page to review your vote and then <i>confirm</i> it.  However, these elections officials told people that once they hit <i>vote</i> they had voted -- and were then able to go in and change the actual votes.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090319/2040534190.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090319/2040534190.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090319/2040534190.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>security...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090319/2040534190</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:21:22 PST</pubDate>
<title>Optical Scan Voting Shown To Be Very Accurate In Minnesota Election</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090121/1941533482.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090121/1941533482.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've had so many different stories about problems with e-voting machines and optical scan ballot counting machines, that it's at least worth acknowledging when those machines appear to have actually done their job reasonably well (though, not perfectly).  Andrew Appel notes that the hand recount done in Minnesota for the Senatorial election there gave us a chance to look at how well some optical scan machines did, and he suggests <a href="http://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/optical-scan-voting-extremely-accurate-minnesota" target="_new">they did extremely well</a>, with a net accuracy at 99.99% and a gross accuracy of 99.91%.  Of course... both of those numbers mean that the number of ballots incorrectly recorded could have swung the election in one way or another, given the minuscule margin between the two candidates.
<br /><br />
Either way, the fact that the machines <i>can</i> be somewhat accurate is hardly up for debate.  The issue is about whether or not we <i>know</i> they are accurate, and have mechanisms to easily go back and verify that they're accurate and secure.  And, it's on those two issues that e-voting companies are way behind in fulfilling.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090121/1941533482.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090121/1941533482.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090121/1941533482.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>vote-here</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090121/1941533482</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:33:06 PST</pubDate>
<title>The Real All-Star Action's In The Voting</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081216/0928573140.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081216/0928573140.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Pro sports' all-star games tend to be pretty tepid affairs, but more and more fans are taking the voting for the games seriously -- perhaps a little too seriously. Once upon a time, I remember that you had to actually go to a major-league baseball game to be able to vote for the all-star team, and ballot-stuffing meant grabbing as many paper ballots as you could find and punching out the baseball-shaped chads for your favorite players. But with leagues expanding voting online and to mobile phones, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/sports/hockey/14slapshot.html?src=linkedin">electronic ballot-stuffing is getting much easier</a>, and becoming much more commonplace. The latest incident involves the Montreal Canadiens hockey team, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. Fans decided a fitting way to celebrate would be to have an all-Canadiens starting lineup at the all-star game, so they put their automated-voting scripts to work.
<br /><br />
 This irked Pittsburgh Penguins fans, as it would keep the league's two leading scorers -- both Penguins, natch -- off the ice for the start of the game. So the Penguins encouraged their fans to vote via text message, which lets fans vote for all of a team's players at once, to great effect: the two players in question <a href="http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=398371">now rank 1 and 2</a> in voting. The NHL has already tossed out a large number of votes placed by the automated scripts, and beefed up its protections against them. While the leagues are obviously looking to expand the pool of all-star voters, particularly to international fans, they need to take great care to protect the integrity of the voting process. Even though most fans would probably agree that, in the grand scheme of things, the all-star games are good for little more than a laugh, their apathy is easily turned to outrage when they feel like their favorite team or player's been shortchanged. Also, anything that further undermines the games' value in fans' eyes could hamper their value to the leagues as money-spinners, a lesson worth learning for any company that does online voting. One possible solution: have Diebold run the all-star voting, since it seems like they might <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20081215/0331133122.shtml">lose</a> plenty of votes anyway.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081216/0928573140.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081216/0928573140.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081216/0928573140.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>game-on</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081216/0928573140</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:05:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Oh Look: Even More Lost Votes By Diebold/Premier</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081215/0331133122.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081215/0331133122.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Following last week's revelation of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081210/0114213067.shtml">votes lost</a> in California thanks to Premier (better known as Diebold) and its voting equipment, <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/13/diebold_loses_votes_again/">The Register</a> points us to <a href="http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/12/12/ddn121208votingweb.html" target="_new">even more votes lost by Premier/Diebold machines in Ohio</a>.  Again, it was only because of a special, rare, spot check, which isn't commonly done with these machines, that the lost votes were noticed.  And, as usual, Diebold... er... Premier downplayed the discovery:
<blockquote><i>
"We have not seen this particular condition anywhere else in Ohio or anywhere else in the country."
</i></blockquote>
Is it really <i>that</i> difficult for the company to admit that it screwed up?  For quite some time now, pretty much every investigation and every more detailed look at any kind of e-voting equipment have turned up similar failures.  For the company to brush it off because it hasn't seen "this particular condition" anywhere else is ridiculous.  It does make you wonder, though, why anyone would ever buy such equipment and use it in an actual election.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081215/0331133122.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081215/0331133122.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081215/0331133122.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>counting-votes-is-soooo-hard</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081215/0331133122</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Aug 2008 01:22:19 PDT</pubDate>
<title>How Come There Aren't More Technologists On The Board Setting Voting Tech Standards?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080801/1738001869.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080801/1738001869.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Ed Felten raises a rather important question concerning the <a href="http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1331" target="_new">lack of knowledgeable computer scientists or other voting technology experts</a> on the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Board of Advisors.   As Felten notes, the EAC is in charge of setting voting technology standards, and four slots (out of 39) on the board are specifically allocated for "members representing professionals in the field of science and technology."  Already, only 4 out of 39 seats seems rather low, considering how important the technology choices are -- but it's even worse when the people filling those slots aren't actually technologists.  Yes, Felten points out that three of the four slots are held by folks who are:
<blockquote><i>
accomplished people who have something to offer on the board. But as far as I can tell they are not "professionals in the field of science and technology," so their appropriate positions on the board would be somewhere in the other thirty-five seats.
</i></blockquote>
So, basically, as it stands, the group in charge of setting voting tech standards appears to have only one technologist on board, and that person, Barbara Simons, was only recently appointed.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080801/1738001869.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080801/1738001869.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080801/1738001869.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>questions,-questions,-questions</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080801/1738001869</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>