"Luddite" hand counting

[Lou Puls <lpuls@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

delta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Bo wrote:

> Subject:  Re: Hand Counting: How Possible Is It for This Year?
> From:      <delta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:      Wed, 7 Apr 2004 11:26:47 -0600
> To:         <cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> All this "hand" counting and "hand" marking.......
> Does it strike anyone else as a pretty Luddite type of stance??

The automatic, knee-jerk  label "Luddite" for anything anti-technology 
is sadly misinformed and ignorant.  The original Luddites were NOT 
anti-technology, they were skilled and adaptable loom operators who 
fought against inhumane working conditions imposed by incredibly vicious 
corporations.

> I fail to see where a buncha tired, retired and unemployed people 
(the volunteers who
> would be doing the hand counting after polls close) would be more 
accurate than an impartial
> machine scanner.  

This is an insulting, unsupported, and arrogant ad hominum 
generalization (typical of Limbaugh-type mentalities) of the vast 
majority of dedicated and concerned citizens who devote their time for 
public benefit.

> how about coming up with *constructive* ways to make technology work 
*for* us rather than
> agin' us?  
> *That* should be the focus........moving us into the future with secure,
> verifiable and accurate technology.  NOT returning us to technology 
of 200 years ago.

If and when "technology" BEGINS to have voting processes that are 
potentially secure, such as operating system, server, and application 
software that has patches for ALL known defects (Microsoft has NONE for 
at least eight admitted ones that are long overdue a patch), when such 
software is ALL open and available for inspection and testing (so far 
only 15% of acknowledged, relevant Microsoft software is hacker-posted 
on the Internet - for perusal by crackers as well as by well-intentioned 
bug-trackers), only then can such software be considered as a possible 
candidate for serious, professional, non-toy status as "technology" 
worthy of a voting machine.  

Beyond that, such sofware must be penalty-GUARANTEED and 
accountably-CERTIFIED to be irreversibly (other than by accountable 
public authority) configured as fully, openly, verifiably, HIGHLY 
ENCRYPTED, not just password fire-walled, for any and all critical data 
storage, access and transmission.  This is not done to any 
professionally satisfactory level on ANYTHING produced by Microsoft.  
When open and credibly upgradable software, such as proposed by 
Stanford, Berkeley, CalTech, MIT, etc., becomes available and usable (as 
it seems to be widely so in Australia) THEN and ONLY THEN is there 
"technology" worthy of consideration for the level of trust that is now 
only available and usable and verifiable by means of hand-recountable 
paper ballots of record.     

Lou