Debate and Discussion

For the liberals who voted the Democrats in to "get us out of Iraq"
TnTComic at 3:20PM, Aug. 19, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0828-08.htm

Voting Machine Controversy
by Julie Carr Smyth


COLUMBUS - The head of a company vying to sell voting machines in Ohio told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that he is “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.”

The Aug. 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc. - who has become active in the re-election effort of President Bush - prompted Democrats this week to question the propriety of allowing O'Dell's company to calculate votes in the 2004 presidential election.

O'Dell attended a strategy pow-wow with wealthy Bush benefactors - known as Rangers and Pioneers - at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch earlier this month. The next week, he penned invitations to a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser to benefit the Ohio Republican Party's federal campaign fund - partially benefiting Bush - at his mansion in the Columbus suburb of Upper Arlington.

The letter went out the day before Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, also a Republican, was set to qualify Diebold as one of three firms eligible to sell upgraded electronic voting machines to Ohio counties in time for the 2004 election.

Blackwell's announcement is still in limbo because of a court challenge over the fairness of the selection process by a disqualified bidder, Sequoia Voting Systems.

In his invitation letter, O'Dell asked guests to consider donating or raising up to $10,000 each for the federal account that the state GOP will use to help Bush and other federal candidates - money that legislative Democratic leaders charged could come back to benefit Blackwell.

They urged Blackwell to remove Diebold from the field of voting-machine companies eligible to sell to Ohio counties.

This is the second such request in as many months. State Sen. Jeff Jacobson, a Dayton-area Republican, asked Blackwell in July to disqualify Diebold after security concerns arose over its equipment.

“Ordinary Ohioans may infer that Blackwell's office is looking past Diebold's security issues because its CEO is seeking $10,000 donations for Blackwell's party - donations that could be made with statewide elected officials right there in the same room,” said Senate Democratic Leader Greg DiDonato.

Diebold spokeswoman Michelle Griggy said O'Dell - who was unavailable to comment personally - has held fund-raisers in his home for many causes, including the Columbus Zoo, Op era Columbus, Catholic Social Services and Ohio State University.

Ohio GOP spokesman Jason Mauk said the party approached O'Dell about hosting the event at his home, the historic Cotswold Manor, and not the other way around. Mauk said that under federal campaign finance rules, the party cannot use any money from its federal account for state- level candidates.

“To think that Diebold is somehow tainted because they have a couple folks on their board who support the president is just unfair,” Mauk said.

Griggy said in an e-mail statement that Diebold could not comment on the political contributions of individual company employees.

Blackwell said Diebold is not the only company with political connections - noting that lobbyists for voting-machine makers read like a who's who of Columbus' powerful and politically connected.

“Let me put it to you this way: If there was one person uniquely involved in the political process, that might be troubling,” he said. “But there's no one that hasn't used every legitimate avenue and bit of leverage that they could legally use to get their product looked at. Believe me, if there is a political lever to be pulled, all of them have pulled it.”

Blackwell said he stands by the process used for selecting voting machine vendors as fair, thorough and impartial.

As of yesterday, however, that determination lay with Ohio Court of Claims Judge Fred Shoemaker.

He heard closing arguments yesterday over whether Sequoia was unfairly eliminated by Blackwell midway through the final phase of negotiations.

Shoemaker extended a temporary restraining order in the case for 14 days, but said he hopes to issue his opinion sooner than that.


—————-

Its not close to impossible to rig an election when your company makes the the machines that tabulate the votes.

———-

http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2004/Nov/0000.html

BALLOT BOXING

Joel N. Shurkin OCTOBER 29, 2004 � Last month, U.S. Sen. Barbara A.
Mikulski decided to try one of Maryland's new voting machines in Takoma
Park. It was a brand-new Diebold AccuVote-TS. The state of Maryland has
just spent $55 million for the ATM-like electronic voting devices to be
used in the upcoming presidential election.

The AccuVote, acting just as a demonstration, offered two choices:
“yes” and “no.” Sen. Mikulski pressed “no.” The machine registered “yes.”


———-


But its all just a wacky conspiracy. Right. You wouldn't be saying that if your guy had lost.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Vindibudd at 4:13PM, Aug. 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
To sum up the article:

guy has voting machines that he sells, guy supports republican, guy gets machines sold.

The End.

Now Bush wins and everyone goes HE RIGGED IT. Well what if Bush lost? HE uh… uhhhh…..uhr….uuuuhhhh

It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Voting is anonymous and until it ceases to be, there will always be someone upset about something getting rigged.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
TnTComic at 4:16PM, Aug. 19, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007

Do you know what a conflict of interest is? Do you know why the NBA fires a referee who gambles?

Do you know why people have a problem with the manufacturer of voting machines promising his state's votes to Bush?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
RobertTidwell at 4:16PM, Aug. 19, 2007
(offline)
posts: 288
joined: 6-2-2007
Vindibudd
To sum up the article:

guy has voting machines that he sells, guy supports republican, guy gets machines sold.

The End.

Now Bush wins and everyone goes HE RIGGED IT. Well what if Bush lost? HE uh… uhhhh…..uhr….uuuuhhhh

It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Voting is anonymous and until it ceases to be, there will always be someone upset about something getting rigged.

Hmm. You dont think people saying, “use our product and we'll garuntee that you win.” could possibly be considered cheating?

Oh, I remember when I used to trust the government.

For the record, I didn't and would never vote for Gore.
Iconoclast: One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.

http://www.drunkduck.com/Love_Song_For_Polyhymnia/
http://www.drunkduck.com/Ogre/
http://www.drunkduck.com/The_Guilty_Will_be_Punished/
http://www.drunkduck.com/Labrynth/
email: RobertTidwell.Comics@gmail.com
Aim: R Tidwell Comics
http://www.myspace.com/Robert_Tidwell_Comics
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:08PM
Vindibudd at 4:35PM, Aug. 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
TnTComic
Do you know what a conflict of interest is? Do you know why the NBA fires a referee who gambles?

Do you know why people have a problem with the manufacturer of voting machines promising his state's votes to Bush?

I'm sorry, I didn't read the part where he said, “Hey, we at Diebold will guarantee that you win this election”
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Vindibudd at 4:36PM, Aug. 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
RobertTidwell
Hmm. You dont think people saying, “use our product and we'll garuntee that you win.” could possibly be considered cheating?

Except that he never said anything of the sort.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
TnTComic at 4:38PM, Aug. 19, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Vindibudd
TnTComic
Do you know what a conflict of interest is? Do you know why the NBA fires a referee who gambles?

Do you know why people have a problem with the manufacturer of voting machines promising his state's votes to Bush?

I'm sorry, I didn't read the part where he said, “Hey, we at Diebold will guarantee that you win this election”

He, as the president of Diebold, said he was committed to delivering Ohio. I don't know what you're missing about that.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Vindibudd at 4:41PM, Aug. 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
TnTComic
He, as the president of Diebold, said he was committed to delivering Ohio. I don't know what you're missing about that.

He did not say “As the president of Diebold, I guarantee that you will win the election.”

He wrote a fund raising letter and he also just happens to be the president of Diebold. He did not write the fund raising letter on Diebold letterhead guaranteeing a Bush victory. Can you not see the difference?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
TnTComic at 4:44PM, Aug. 19, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007

If he wasn't the president of Diebold, there would be no reason to read his letter. He wasn't some average Joe, Vindi. He was the president of Diebold.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Ronson at 5:01PM, Aug. 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Vindibudd
Once upon a time we had this discussion, Ronson. I doubt either of us has had a change in viewpoint. My problem at this point is the whole attitude that there was a giant ongoing Republican election conspiracy here when in reality, it would be close to impossible to rig an entire nationwide election.

Except you understand the Kennedy vote stuffing issue enough to claim it as fact.

It isn't “nationwide”. That would be so easy to expose it'd be laughable. All they needed were the swing states. In 2000, everything came down to Ohio and Florida. Guess where republican state administrators did at least somewhat dodgy things? If you said Ohio and Florida you are correct. There were also shenanigans in New Mexico on the Indian reservations that may or may not have been part of it. In 2004 it was Florida and Ohio again, and Nevada had some odd stuff as did New Hampshire.

Maybe it isn't a coordinated effort. Maybe each republican state administration was just being unofficially advised to change a law here, or reject a registration or a ballot there. The problem is that there has been very little investigation (some in Ohio, some in NH, both ending in convictions, but with uninvestigated trails that lead back to DC).

The problem is that there has been no investigation of why Florida allowed thousands of voters to be disenfranchised. There has been no outcry to count everyone's vote.

And there won't be, because both sides think they can exploit the weaknesses instead of competing on a level playing field.

The problem is that these issues won't even be brought to the table for discussion, let alone investigated. It could be there's nothing there, but then the foot dragging and out and out stonewalling by republican officials is just baffling.

Can we at least agree that we SHOULD count all the votes? Because the current system we have right now does not count provisional ballots or absentee ballots unless the race is extremely close.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Ronson at 5:05PM, Aug. 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
A point about the voting machines:

That isn't where the bulk of voter fraud NEEDS to happen, though I have to admit that the possibility exists that it DOES happen there.

The fact that no neutral party is allowed to examine the code or the construction of the machines (because of “intellectual property rights” of a private corporation) is enough for me to feel unsure of anything done with these machines.

The remarks of the Diebold system do not mean he's guilty, but being partisan and implementing a voting system that works in ways completely unknowable to the public seems a very bad idea.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Vindibudd at 5:31PM, Aug. 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Ronson
Can we at least agree that we SHOULD count all the votes? Because the current system we have right now does not count provisional ballots or absentee ballots unless the race is extremely close.


Of course all legitimately cast votes should count. The problem really is what counts as a legitimate vote. So we have lots of people who could not vote because of name confusion with felons in Florida. Well here is the thing, did those people cast provisional ballots or did those counties have any way of registering these peoples' votes until they could be verified as legal voters? We don't know that. In Florida all the counties have their own procedures. But no one can sit there and go that Florida did this like there were 4 people or something that sat around picking names they thought looked like they were minorities and added them to felon rolls. Obviously people that are felons are not going to have super-exclusive names that no one else has. Heck, my name is Andrew Williams. How many people do you think have my name? Thousands. There is a possibility that Joe Smith could get confused with someone else.

As for the problem with most of them being minorities, well most of the jail population is made up of minorities. So this should not be surprising that these people that had trouble voting because of this were mostly of minority ethnicity.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Vindibudd at 5:44PM, Aug. 19, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Ronson
The remarks of the Diebold system do not mean he's guilty, but being partisan and implementing a voting system that works in ways completely unknowable to the public seems a very bad idea.

I concur.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
TnTComic at 6:11PM, Aug. 19, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Ronson
The remarks of the Diebold system do not mean he's guilty

If I was on trial for murder, and they had a letter from me saying I was going to kill the victim…. do you think the jury would find that important?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Ronson at 4:26AM, Aug. 20, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
TnTComic
Ronson
The remarks of the Diebold system do not mean he's guilty

If I was on trial for murder, and they had a letter from me saying I was going to kill the victim…. do you think the jury would find that important?

Yeah, but that's not what was said. It would be like if you said “this guy is going to get killed.” Still worth an investigation, but not necessarily proof of guilt.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Ronson at 4:50AM, Aug. 20, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Vindibudd
Of course all legitimately cast votes should count.

The system now does not count legitimately cast absentee ballots and provisional ballots.

The problem really is what counts as a legitimate vote.

The absentee ballot/provisional ballots that are not counted are legitimate votes…or at least verifyable to find legitimacy but are never checked. I don't mean to harp on it, but as more minorities are denied voting and cast provisional ballots these votes aren't being counted. As more soldiers are overseas, these votes aren't being counted. It is voter disenfranchisement for people following the rules and it's written into almost every state's laws.

So we have lots of people who could not vote because of name confusion with felons in Florida.

Which is odd, because the felon list that was being used included social security numbers, but the purge list didn't take that into consideration. It also didn't notify the people who were being purged that it was happening.

Well here is the thing, did those people cast provisional ballots or did those counties have any way of registering these peoples' votes until they could be verified as legal voters? We don't know that.

Actually we do. In 2000, these people were turned away at the polls and were not able to vote because there was no system in place to be able to cast a provisional ballot. What we dont' know is how many people there were. Only a handful actually tried to bring the issue to court, and I don't know where thier cases stand.

In Florida all the counties have their own procedures. But no one can sit there and go that Florida did this like there were 4 people or something that sat around picking names they thought looked like they were minorities and added them to felon rolls. Obviously people that are felons are not going to have super-exclusive names that no one else has. Heck, my name is Andrew Williams. How many people do you think have my name? Thousands. There is a possibility that Joe Smith could get confused with someone else.

Again, they were provided social security numbers for the felons and didn't use them. Also, it isn't even like they stopped at all the “Andrew Williams”, but they also went to “A Williams”, “Richard A. Williams” and sometimes “Andrea Williams”.

Another thing is that not all of the felons listed were legally not allowed to vote in the first place. Florida's constitution only allows felons to be removed from the voter rolls if they were convicted in Florida. The felon's list included a list of felons from other states (including Texas). Even if these felons were convicted in other states, they shouldn't have been used for Florida's voter purge.

As for the problem with most of them being minorities, well most of the jail population is made up of minorities. So this should not be surprising that these people that had trouble voting because of this were mostly of minority ethnicity.

If I were trying to escalate this argument, I'd argue that you have just said that non-felons who were denied the vote deserved it because they were black. I'm not saying that, because I know you well enough that you wouldn't imply that.

But the casual disregard you - and by extention anyone posing the same argument - have for voter disenfranchisement is staggering. The fact that legitimate voters were routinely denied to have their vote count (absentee and now provisional) was something I was not aware of until the 2000 election, and it makes me sick. The fact that legitimately registered voters were tossed off a list because their name was similar to a felon's is wrong.

The counter-argument - if you can call it that, I'd call it obfuscation - is that we have a problem of people voting who are illegal aliens and people who are voting twice.

Now, I don't know if anyone making that argument has ever voted, but when you go to vote, the voting officials have a list of everyone in their precinct. If you aren't on the list you don't vote. If you voted already, they have a record of it. If your area is like mine, they know who you are when you walk through the door, as the precincts are fairly small.

Though it cannot be said that there is no problem with illegals voting or multiple voting, there have been very few convictions in this area. So few as to be statistically insignificant in local elections let alone national ones.

But I say that if people are voting who shouldn't, we should stop them as well. I'm not for illegal voting. But apparently some people are for voter disenfranchisement.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
TnTComic at 5:00AM, Aug. 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Gosh there are a lot of problems with the process. While I don't personally believe it is because of liberals, I could be wrong. It could be because of liberals. I don't know! Maybe they are being sore losers, maybe they're not. Its hard to say, but I respect everyone's opinion on the subject!
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
mapaghimagsik at 12:22PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
The voter fraud that was pushed by the justice department didn't look at machine irregularities. It was supposed to suppress get out the vote efforts by in effect making the audit process untenable.

Now there are far more cases of voter caging and voter denial attacks that have actually been prosecuted (the most famous being in Ohio) than this mythical justice department of “Look, they're racing over the border to vote illegally” Which has *never* been proven.

I'd like to see everyone who is entitled to vote be allowed to vote. However, I also think this whole “you were in prison once, you can't vote” is a little odd, since you were supposed to have paid your debt to society in prison.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
bobhhh at 12:29PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Vindibudd
A lot of the hardcore leftists are of the opinion that the Democratic congress was elected with a mandate to get the country out of Iraq. I disagree. If they had been elected with a mandate like that, in other words, if the country REALLY wanted the US out of Iraq, they would have put in a veto proof majority. As it stands, the Democrats can't get any sort of withdrawal bill going without trying to buy off votes with pet projects.

So my message for you who are angry that your Democrats that you voted for have not gotten us out of Iraq when “that's what we put them in for” need to understand that they don't have the votes to do it and will not have the votes to do it. The fact of the matter is that the country does not want to pull out of Iraq in the current state that it is in. The country wants to defeat the terrorists there. The sooner you understand this, the sooner you can stop being angry with life.

Jeez don't know where to begin. First of all the American people are not monolithic, so they can't get together and jerrymander a convenient 60 percent majority for the dems. Further who knows if that's wise, checks and balances remember. I am a dem, but I feel it's neccessary to prevent one side from walking all over another, it breeds resentment and revenge instead of compromise and understanding.

Next it's clear that a majority of the american people where mad about the war for varying reasons and the reps failed to combat the image that they were in agreement about what the bushies were selling, “we're doing a heckaova job, and any dissent will endanger the troops”

Finaaly the American public is widespread and fickle. There are countless instances of our brother citizens excercizing lazy democracy. Not being aware of the depth of current events and making the most important decisions based on soundbites and pundits. Most dispicable is the abdication of their duty to excercize the franchise. So they may well want the dems to get us out even if they are too irresponsible to vote for it.

Bob
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Vindibudd at 12:35PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Ronson
But I say that if people are voting who shouldn't, we should stop them as well. I'm not for illegal voting. But apparently some people are for voter disenfranchisement.

Ultimately, after all the back and forth where you have legitimate points and so on, what I am trying to say, Ronson, is that the problems with 2000 are being addressed. Crist is already trying to get rid of the felon issue by restoring full civil rights.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
bobhhh at 12:37PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
RobertTidwell
Vindibudd
To sum up the article:

guy has voting machines that he sells, guy supports republican, guy gets machines sold.

The End.

Now Bush wins and everyone goes HE RIGGED IT. Well what if Bush lost? HE uh… uhhhh…..uhr….uuuuhhhh

It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Voting is anonymous and until it ceases to be, there will always be someone upset about something getting rigged.

Hmm. You dont think people saying, “use our product and we'll garuntee that you win.” could possibly be considered cheating?

Oh, I remember when I used to trust the government.

For the record, I didn't and would never vote for Gore.

You say that proudly as if the alternative we got stuck with was such a good deal.

Take your pick, Iraq, Tax Cuts, Stem cell research, lax fuel efficiency standards, Dissmissal of science on global warming…the list goes on. Bush is fkn disaster.

I proudly voted for Gore, sure his campaign was run poorly, but his politics would have made this a stronger and more secure country than ut currently is.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
Vindibudd at 12:39PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mapaghimagsik
I'd like to see everyone who is entitled to vote be allowed to vote. However, I also think this whole “you were in prison once, you can't vote” is a little odd, since you were supposed to have paid your debt to society in prison.

You know, this bothers me as well. I think it violates the 14th amendment of equal protection and also the 8th amendment with regards to cruel and unusual punishment. Think that if someone has done their time and paid their fines that they should be allowed to do whatever everyone else can do.

This brings up the whole sexual predator thing. Personally, I think sexual predators should get the death penalty, but if we are not going to do that it, it is not constitutional to put their address on a website for vigilantes to start looking up.


This is a whole other thread though.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
mapaghimagsik at 12:42PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Vindibudd
This brings up the whole sexual predator thing. Personally, I think sexual predators should get the death penalty, but if we are not going to do that it, it is not constitutional to put their address on a website for vigilantes to start looking up.


In a perfect legal system, I'd agree. You should start another thread on this topic alone. However, since the topic is such a hot button, I estimate it to take about 3 hours before an admin has to lock it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
warren at 9:52PM, Aug. 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 110
joined: 1-9-2007
Vindibudd
This brings up the whole sexual predator thing. Personally, I think sexual predators should get the death penalty, but if we are not going to do that it, it is not constitutional to put their address on a website for vigilantes to start looking up.
You know, the website thing really bothers me. If they're safe to be on the streets, they deserve a second chance. *coughYeahRightcough*

I'm also bothered as much by repeat drunken drivers. Some get out time and time again only to be caught once more. I almost have to conclude a life sentence is the only way to keep them from driving again, since they can't control their addiction or their desire to drive.
Warren

On the Duck:
Title -updating! ~30 strips!
PAC -New! >10 strips.

Others:
Spare Change -updating! ~2000 strips!
Mass Production -hiatus. ~300 strips.

This guy does Piss Mario, Stick, and Filler!
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:48PM
mapaghimagsik at 9:46AM, Aug. 30, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
So what's the real story on voter fraud? Seems that the Justice Department and Friends didn't want you to know. A non-partisan group who spent six months on the issue get silenced, and the draft report gets ‘creatively re-written’. How very interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082901928.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
TnTComic at 8:19AM, Aug. 31, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
warren
Vindibudd
This brings up the whole sexual predator thing. Personally, I think sexual predators should get the death penalty, but if we are not going to do that it, it is not constitutional to put their address on a website for vigilantes to start looking up.
You know, the website thing really bothers me. If they're safe to be on the streets, they deserve a second chance. *coughYeahRightcough*

I'm also bothered as much by repeat drunken drivers. Some get out time and time again only to be caught once more. I almost have to conclude a life sentence is the only way to keep them from driving again, since they can't control their addiction or their desire to drive.

There's certainly more cost-effective measures to curtail drunken driving. As for either case, sexual predators or drunk drivers, we punish people for what they do, not for what they might do.

I'm a parent. And honestly, I don't depend on websites or signs in yards to tell me that I shouldn't trust my kid with a stranger. I keep an eye on my child. I make it my responsibility to know where she is and who she is with at all times. That's my job.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
warren at 9:25AM, Aug. 31, 2007
(offline)
posts: 110
joined: 1-9-2007
TnTComic
warren
Vindibudd
This brings up the whole sexual predator thing. Personally, I think sexual predators should get the death penalty, but if we are not going to do that it, it is not constitutional to put their address on a website for vigilantes to start looking up.
You know, the website thing really bothers me. If they're safe to be on the streets, they deserve a second chance. *coughYeahRightcough*

I'm also bothered as much by repeat drunken drivers. Some get out time and time again only to be caught once more. I almost have to conclude a life sentence is the only way to keep them from driving again, since they can't control their addiction or their desire to drive.

There's certainly more cost-effective measures to curtail drunken driving. As for either case, sexual predators or drunk drivers, we punish people for what they do, not for what they might do.
What is a cost-effective way of making sure that someone who has been caught driving a dozen times on a suspended license (all while drunk) doesn't continue to do so? He will continue to drive.

It isn't about what he will do… it's about what he has done. He's driven drunk repeatedly. And he will kill someone eventually (most likely not himself.) The driver is a public safety threat.
Warren

On the Duck:
Title -updating! ~30 strips!
PAC -New! >10 strips.

Others:
Spare Change -updating! ~2000 strips!
Mass Production -hiatus. ~300 strips.

This guy does Piss Mario, Stick, and Filler!
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:48PM
TnTComic at 9:40AM, Aug. 31, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
warren
What is a cost-effective way of making sure that someone who has been caught driving a dozen times on a suspended license (all while drunk) doesn't continue to do so? He will continue to drive.

A breathalizer ignition is much cheaper than incarceration.

And all drivers are public safety threats. Especially in Michigan.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
mlai at 12:02PM, Aug. 31, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
That sounds like a great mandatory car accessory.

Why isn't it in cars yet? Or, why don't layppl hear more about this yet?

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
bobhhh at 11:13AM, Sept. 6, 2007
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
TnTComic
warren
What is a cost-effective way of making sure that someone who has been caught driving a dozen times on a suspended license (all while drunk) doesn't continue to do so? He will continue to drive.

A breathalizer ignition is much cheaper than incarceration.

And all drivers are public safety threats. Especially in Michigan.

Fkn brilliant, where do I vote for that??
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved