Re: "Luddite" hand counting

[<delta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Comments below.....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lou Puls" <lpuls@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 12:14 PM
Subject: "Luddite" hand counting


> 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.
>
And your point is?
Regardless of what is *was*, he term "Luddite" has come to mean anyone who
is afraid of technology.
It's not automatic, nor is it knee jerk.......it's just the modern use of
language.


>  > 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.

Oh, and *your* statement is non-Limbaugh like?
You talk like a man with a paper ass.
*I* was at the Clerks office for this last election (were *you*?)
Those people were tired, poorly trained and not incredibly
competent......that's a fact.
They may be vast, dedicated and concerned.........that *doesn't* make them
super human.
These people (including myself) were making mistakes in just opening
envelopes and sorting.......
And, I guess you trust each and every one of *them* to be completely honest
and forthright......unlike machine operators.

>  > 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.
>

So' who's going to help accomplish this?
.....apparently not *you*.


> Beyond that, such software 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 upgradeable 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
>

So, you don't even trust inanimate software to be honest, and you suspect
every code writer in the world of trying to subvert things....yet you have
complete faith and confidence in local people (who probably actually have a
stake in the outcome.....;-) to count honestly and accurately.
You're so full of absolutes.......among other things.
The world must truly disappoint you.

Bo
>