[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Hand count or open source

To: <cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Hand count or open source
From: "Some Guy" <someguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 10:30:59 -0700
Delivered-to: mailing list cvv-discuss@coloradovoter.net
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <20041109154640.GO15996@feynman>
List-help: <mailto:cvv-discuss-help@coloradovoter.net>
List-post: <mailto:cvv-discuss@coloradovoter.net>
List-subscribe: <mailto:cvv-discuss-subscribe@coloradovoter.net>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:cvv-discuss-unsubscribe@coloradovoter.net>
Mailing-list: contact cvv-discuss-help@coloradovoter.net; run by ezmlm

Classic. The question was chocolate or vanilla, and you chose strawberry
with caveats.

-----Original Message-----
From: Neal McBurnett [mailto:neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 8:47 AM
To: cvv-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Hand count or open source

I choose option #3, which was the original citizens request, starting
over a year ago: BOTH fully-disclosed software/hardware with
procedural protections, and a hand-counted audit of 1% of the votes.

-Neal
[|>]

Follow-Ups:
- RE: Hand count or open source
  - From: kellen carey

References:
- Re: Hand count or open source
  - From: Neal McBurnett

Prev by Date: Longmont Times Call - 9 Nov. 2004
Next by Date: RE: precincts vs. polling locations.
Previous by thread: Re: Hand count or open source
Next by thread: RE: Hand count or open source
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread