Re: How can Neal say Boulder's election was accurate

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

See a comment below about a view of the world that I think is mistaken.

On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 06:54:45PM -0700, Evan Daniel Ravitz wrote:
> 
> The question Neal is if we're going to be effective in getting
> either:
> 
> 1. open source software with procedural protections to make sure
> the source we inspect is what we vote with.
> 
> or
> 
> 2. hand-counted paper ballots
> 
> before NEXT YEAR's election.
> 
> If you want one of those, you must clearly say so at EVERY
> opportunity like you had this morning. Vanishingly few will listen
> to your comment, go back to their memory of what you said the day
> before, and have any idea what you really think.
> 
> One year ago I tried to get consensus on #2 so we could have a
> chance of actually forcing the bureaucratic/corporate complex to do
> what we want.
> 
> They have all the money, time, public relations liars, etc. We are
> right, but MUST SAY WHAT WE WANT. If you say what you think will
> get you invited to meetings, or what will make voters feel
> good, or anything else, you are just making a hobby for yourself
> -and maybe you can write a book someday about how democracy was
> destroyed with machines in the U.S. -if by then the unelected still
> let you.
> 
> The confused way you and others are talking will ensure that the
> bureaucratic/corporate complex will win again next year.
> 

I don't believe that there is a conspiracy of the bureaucratic/corporate
complex. I believe in the existence of human incompetance. There are 
a lot of well meaning people who don't do what you, or I, want because
they don't know any better.



> Evan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, Neal McBurnett wrote:
> 
> > > I just heard Neal say on KGNU that he thought Boulder's election
> > > seemed to be accurate.
> >
> > Sorry if it came across like that, folks.  I didn't have much time to
> > prepare and I was concentrating on other aspects of the interview.
> > But I didn't say it quite like that.  I made it clear that the system
> > is far too vulnerable to fraud or major mistakes.
> >
> > I just recorded this on the KGNU comment line:
> >
> >  Listeners may have thought that during an interview with KGNU
> >  yesterday, that I said the boulder county vote count was accurate.
> >  In listening to the tape, I see that my quick response wasn't well
> >  stated - and I'm sorry about that.  I want to emphasize for the
> >  record that we don't yet know how accurate the results are.  As
> >  discussed in the rest of the interview, it reamains too easy to
> >  commit fraud with these systems.  Because of the the lack of
> >  transparency in the system and lack of a hand audit, we'll never
> >  really know for sure.  The canvass board has not yet reviewed the
> >  results, that there are still outstanding questions.  So while I
> >  didn't observe anything that indicates hard evidence of a major
> >  miscount, I do think we need major changes to have the sort of
> >  confidence in our democracy that we deserve.
> >
> >  On the other hand, we're glad that we got a paper-based system in
> >  Boulder, so we have more confidence in the results than those
> >  counties that use touch-screen machines.  We can do a recount of the
> >  paper if necessary, though unfortunately colorado law makes it hard
> >  to do a recount by hand.
> >
> > But besides that I think the interview again highlighted the concerns
> > that so many citizens have been focussing on.
> >
> > It turns out that somehow by mistake I was unsubscribed from this
> > list last Friday, and I now see that there is a lot of other
> > stuff to catch up with.  Thanks for speaking out, folks!
> >
> > Neal McBurnett                 http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/
> > Signed and/or sealed mail encouraged.  GPG/PGP Keyid: 2C9EBA60
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 08:33:14AM -0700, Evan Daniel Ravitz wrote:
> > > I just heard Neal say on KGNU that he thought Boulder's election
> > > seemed to be accurate.
> > >
> > > How can you say that, Neal? You nor I nor anyone else but the
> > > shadowy "certifiers" have ever looked at the software which does the
> > > counting.
> > >
> > > As Bev Harris said on KGNU this morning, there is NO way of knowing
> > > what goes on in the "black boxes" which count our votes.
> > >
> > > Again, you techies get so lost in the details of elections, you lose
> > > track of the big picture.
> > >
> > > As David Dill says, there is NO difference between elections counted
> > > by secret software and elections counted by had secretly in locked
> > > rooms by unaccountable people.
> > >
> > > Why did you say that, Neal? Is someone pressuring you to be
> > > reassuring to the sheep?
> > >
> > > Evan
> >
> 
> 

-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx