A closer look at the GAO's Florida District 13

No smoking gun...Not if but when and how often. Could Red be next?

Still, contained within the finding of the GAO report is a series of circumstances that individually reveal an apparent lapse in sound business checks and balances, and computer security basics with regards to Elections Systems & Software (ES&S). Together they are troubling. Full Story »

Posted by Mike LaBonte
Tags Help
Subjects: Politics
Topics: Election Reform
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Mike LaBonte - Oct 30, 2007 - 6:01 PM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Fabrice Florin - Oct 30, 2007 - 6:52 PM PDT

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Mike LaBonte
3.1
by Mike LaBonte - Oct. 1, 2008

Discusses the recent GAO report on machines used in the 2006 Florida CD 13 election. I have looked at the report. This story does a pretty good job finding the interesting stuff, while accuracy characterizing the GAO's own conclusions. A little technical, but informative. No link to the report.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Fabrice Florin
3.4
by Fabrice Florin - Oct. 1, 2008

Informative update about troubling circumstances surrounding electoral procedures in Florida and elsewhere.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Patricia L'Herrou
3.0
by Patricia L'Herrou - Oct. 1, 2008

this contains technical information which wasn't always clear to me, and the potential significance offered of each point i have to take on faith. I couldn't tell from the article (altho the report itself offers more info) if the gao, from whose report the points are taken, did or did not find these points important enough to sound their own alarm. with the number of other news stories about electronic and other potential abuse in elections, and the commission's lack of actively pursuing content such as this story, raises real concerns about the validity of our election process.

See Full Review » (3 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.3

Average
from 4 reviews (40% confidence)
Quality
3.4
Facts
3.5
Fairness
4.0
Information
4.0
Sourcing
3.7
Style
2.5
Accuracy
4.0
Balance
4.0
Context
3.7
Popularity
3.0
Recommendation
3.5
Credibility
2.7
# Reviews
2.0
# Views
2.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »