7 ms·

Criticisms of the underlying hardware/software aside, my intuitive answer to the headline question is "because governments are buying them." Perhaps the esteem

by bshipp 8y ago

Criticisms of the underlying hardware/software aside, my intuitive answer to the headline question is "because governments are buying them." Perhaps the esteemed Senators should undertake a short naval-gazing exercise and ask "how could there only be three major players in such a lucrative segment, each selling ancient hardware and crappy software products?" I'm going to go out on a limb and guess at the answer to that question, and it likely shows those three companies as being the only ones with the patience and tenacity to get those models approved. So Mr./Ms. Senator(s), I suggest you rephrase your question as follows: "how can we simplify the procurement process to make sure we, the government, are receiving the greatest value for our expenditures?"

maxxxxx 8y ago
"because governments are buying them." The main problem in american politics is that a lot of decisions are made either to damage the "other" party or to accommodate some donor. When you look at Congress they barely think about doing something right.
- tru3_power 8y ago
  Off topic question- but this is always something that interested me: do you have any blatant examples of a high level politician solely choosing a product to accommodate a donor?
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    There is a lot of more or less blatant bribery going on in state and local governments. My girlfriend does investigations in that area and she has a ton of examples (which I can't publish). As far as I know pretty much every state and country manages their own election system so they are very vulnerable to local politicians who often don't even understand what they are dealing with.
  - stevehawk 8y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer has often been considered one of those items, given that there was seemingly very little to gain by bringing up a ship twenty years after it sank. But there are also some conspiracies about why the sub had fifteen extra people onboard and that Kissinger was looking for more information on that.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    Maybe one example: NASA is developing the SLS mainly to keep jobs in some districts. so billions are spent on something that's really not the right thing from a technical point of view. Same for voting machines: They are often either bought to keep jobs somewhere or because there is some connection between the vendor and decisions maker.
    - MrEldritch 8y ago
      Another example is the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters - the reason they're there, essentially, is to keep Thiokol happy.
  - jtuente 8y ago
    From my perspective, it usually derives from some kind of 'think of the jobs' mentality. https://pilotonline.com/opinion/editorial/article_947f55ff-34d7-5c35-8c19-c9691fffd1ef.html https://pilotonline.com/opinion/editorial/article_947f55ff-3...
  - JustSomeNobody 8y ago
    There's a term for that: "Pork barrel spending". > Pork barrel is a metaphor for the appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district. It's isn't hard to imagine who benefits from that.
munificent 8y ago
> "how could there only be three major players in such a lucrative segment, each selling ancient hardware and crappy software products?" Because all markets tend towards cartels and consolidation unless vigilant, enforced regulation prevents it? Why do Coca-Cola and Pepsico have >60% of the soft drink market? Why do the largest two or three meat processing companies have the majority market share in almost every category? Why does Nestle have more annual revenue than the GDP of Sri Lanka?
- linuxftw 8y ago
  > Why do Coca-Cola and Pepsico have >60% of the soft drink market? Well, this one is probably simple: government. I'm unsure whether it would be copyright, or trademark infringement, but if you release a product that tastes exactly like coke or pepsi, you'll probably find yourself in expensive litigation.
  - JustSomeNobody 8y ago
    Why does it have to taste exactly like the other? The two biggies just overpower the others: http://mentalfloss.com/article/76881/tragic-history-rc-cola http://mentalfloss.com/article/76881/tragic-history-rc-cola
  - LgWoodenBadger 8y ago
    The formula for Coke is supposedly a trade-secret, for which there are no protections other than keeping it secret, and I guess maybe not acquiring it illegally. So, on what basis would Coca-Cola or PepsiCo have for a suit?
  - hnick 8y ago
    I'm pretty sure flavours and even recipes can't be copyrighted. Perhaps patented, but as others said that makes them public and protected for only a relatively limited time. Hence why formulations like KFC and Coca Cola are kept as a trade secret instead. Branding and awareness is their real power, and a small time competitor has no real leverage there. And perception plays a huge role in flavour, so even if your product tastes the same, it won't.
justin66 8y ago
> So Mr./Ms. Senator(s), I suggest you rephrase your question as follows: "how can we simplify the procurement process to make sure we, the government, are receiving the greatest value for our expenditures?" Hey guys, let's drop this important task we are working on and go look for the holy grail!
Bluestrike2 8y ago
They don't actually have any influence in the purchase decisions, as it's a state matter. Machines are bought by local governments, with varying state regulations on what can be purchased depending on the state in question. Most machines were paid for by local jurisdictions with a mix of federal funding (HAVA), and in some cases, state funds for part of the cost. Some states have uniform systems; others do not.[0] On election day, there isn't just "one" election but thousands taking place. There's no single procedure for procuring voting machines, well, anywhere. To make matters worse, each jurisdiction and the states are fiercely protective of their power in this matter. A federally uniform system, or even just something beyond the very basic requirements set by the Help America Vote Act in 2002, is right now very unlikely and would be a massive political and legal mess. Or, more accurately, a series of messes. 0. http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-canvass-june-2016.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-can...
- ams6110 8y ago
  > There's no single procedure for procuring voting machines, well, anywhere. And that's probably a good thing. Heterogeneity in this sort of thing is desirable, as it makes large-scale fraud harder to pull off.
  - athenot 8y ago
    Not if all these heterogenous procurement processes end up buying from the same 3 vendors.
  - specialist 8y ago
    Scott Adams (Dilbert) coined a term that applies to the voting machine vendor certification procurement racket: confusopoly.
- specialist 8y ago
  In addition, there's no uniform certification process. EAC.gov made things a wee bit better, but it's an advisory role.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago

by bshipp 8y ago

maxxxxx 8y ago

"because governments are buying them." The main problem in american politics is that a lot of decisions are made either to damage the "other" party or to accommodate some donor. When you look at Congress they barely think about doing something right.

tru3_power 8y ago
Off topic question- but this is always something that interested me: do you have any blatant examples of a high level politician solely choosing a product to accommodate a donor?
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  There is a lot of more or less blatant bribery going on in state and local governments. My girlfriend does investigations in that area and she has a ton of examples (which I can't publish). As far as I know pretty much every state and country manages their own election system so they are very vulnerable to local politicians who often don't even understand what they are dealing with.
- stevehawk 8y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer has often been considered one of those items, given that there was seemingly very little to gain by bringing up a ship twenty years after it sank. But there are also some conspiracies about why the sub had fifteen extra people onboard and that Kissinger was looking for more information on that.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Maybe one example: NASA is developing the SLS mainly to keep jobs in some districts. so billions are spent on something that's really not the right thing from a technical point of view. Same for voting machines: They are often either bought to keep jobs somewhere or because there is some connection between the vendor and decisions maker.
  - MrEldritch 8y ago
    Another example is the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters - the reason they're there, essentially, is to keep Thiokol happy.
- jtuente 8y ago
  From my perspective, it usually derives from some kind of 'think of the jobs' mentality. https://pilotonline.com/opinion/editorial/article_947f55ff-34d7-5c35-8c19-c9691fffd1ef.html https://pilotonline.com/opinion/editorial/article_947f55ff-3...
- JustSomeNobody 8y ago
  There's a term for that: "Pork barrel spending". > Pork barrel is a metaphor for the appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district. It's isn't hard to imagine who benefits from that.

munificent 8y ago

> "how could there only be three major players in such a lucrative segment, each selling ancient hardware and crappy software products?" Because all markets tend towards cartels and consolidation unless vigilant, enforced regulation prevents it? Why do Coca-Cola and Pepsico have >60% of the soft drink market? Why do the largest two or three meat processing companies have the majority market share in almost every category? Why does Nestle have more annual revenue than the GDP of Sri Lanka?

linuxftw 8y ago
> Why do Coca-Cola and Pepsico have >60% of the soft drink market? Well, this one is probably simple: government. I'm unsure whether it would be copyright, or trademark infringement, but if you release a product that tastes exactly like coke or pepsi, you'll probably find yourself in expensive litigation.
- JustSomeNobody 8y ago
  Why does it have to taste exactly like the other? The two biggies just overpower the others: http://mentalfloss.com/article/76881/tragic-history-rc-cola http://mentalfloss.com/article/76881/tragic-history-rc-cola
- LgWoodenBadger 8y ago
  The formula for Coke is supposedly a trade-secret, for which there are no protections other than keeping it secret, and I guess maybe not acquiring it illegally. So, on what basis would Coca-Cola or PepsiCo have for a suit?
- hnick 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure flavours and even recipes can't be copyrighted. Perhaps patented, but as others said that makes them public and protected for only a relatively limited time. Hence why formulations like KFC and Coca Cola are kept as a trade secret instead. Branding and awareness is their real power, and a small time competitor has no real leverage there. And perception plays a huge role in flavour, so even if your product tastes the same, it won't.

justin66 8y ago

> So Mr./Ms. Senator(s), I suggest you rephrase your question as follows: "how can we simplify the procurement process to make sure we, the government, are receiving the greatest value for our expenditures?" Hey guys, let's drop this important task we are working on and go look for the holy grail!

Bluestrike2 8y ago

They don't actually have any influence in the purchase decisions, as it's a state matter. Machines are bought by local governments, with varying state regulations on what can be purchased depending on the state in question. Most machines were paid for by local jurisdictions with a mix of federal funding (HAVA), and in some cases, state funds for part of the cost. Some states have uniform systems; others do not.[0] On election day, there isn't just "one" election but thousands taking place. There's no single procedure for procuring voting machines, well, anywhere. To make matters worse, each jurisdiction and the states are fiercely protective of their power in this matter. A federally uniform system, or even just something beyond the very basic requirements set by the Help America Vote Act in 2002, is right now very unlikely and would be a massive political and legal mess. Or, more accurately, a series of messes. 0. http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-canvass-june-2016.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-can...

ams6110 8y ago
> There's no single procedure for procuring voting machines, well, anywhere. And that's probably a good thing. Heterogeneity in this sort of thing is desirable, as it makes large-scale fraud harder to pull off.
- athenot 8y ago
  Not if all these heterogenous procurement processes end up buying from the same 3 vendors.
- specialist 8y ago
  Scott Adams (Dilbert) coined a term that applies to the voting machine vendor certification procurement racket: confusopoly.
specialist 8y ago
In addition, there's no uniform certification process. EAC.gov made things a wee bit better, but it's an advisory role.
amanaplanacanal 8y ago