Re: Wait just a friggin' minute!

["Joe Pezzillo" <jpezzillo@xxxxxxxxx>]

I thought we've been agreed that we don't want votes stored 
electronically, which is by definition what DREs do.

A condensed version: Bits (and thus electronic votes) are not 
verifiable by humans. Physically Marked, Full-Text Paper Ballots are 
verifiable by people, and can be marked and verified by machine for 
accessibility. Paper Ballots may be counted using computer equipment so 
long as that equipment is also verified, by use of hand counted 
statistically relevant samples of paper ballots.

More/less?

I'm curious to hear the group's response.

Joe



On Feb 11, 2004, at 2:15 PM, Nicholas Bernstein wrote:

> OK,
> I need to throw in my two cents here. My understanding is that this 
> group is devoted to promoting verifiable voting, NOT to the 
> elminination of DREs. I can understand the objections to the currently 
> available DREs with or without paper audit trails, but I cannot 
> understand nor endorse an effort to outlaw DREs altogether.
>
> There are two separate issues here. One is ensuring that the languange 
> in this bill is appropriate and the other is casting a critical eye on 
> any technology that comes down the pipe, whether that is DRE 
> technology or ballot marking technology. We don't need--and I don't 
> want--language in the bill that ENFORCES the use of an all paper 
> system. My ideal solution would be reliable open-source DRE code with 
> a paper receipt. (And I don't want to hear all the whining about 
> reliable code not being a possibility. It is).  Leaving languange in 
> that allows a DRE system doesn't mandate its use, and is the only 
> forward thinking thing to do.
>
> Nick
>
> AlKolwicz wrote:
>
> > E
> > My sense is that we MUST get the digital ballot quashed and the paper 
> > ballot
> > adopted.  If we fail to do so now, more equipment will be purchased 
> > and our
> > likelihood of success in the future is lessened.
> >
> > If we fail to fix the recount language, I think that we can get it 
> > repaired
> > later.  If we fail to eliminate "paper audit trails" this year, we'll 
> > be
> > stuck with non-trustworthy elections for a long long time.
> >
> > Al