Re: Hand count or open source

[Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Neal:

I'd support your position if state law changed about doing recounts.

In the absence of that then #2 makes more sense.

Ralph Shnelvar


On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 08:46:40 -0700, you wrote:

>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
>
>On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 08:15:06AM -0700, Evan Daniel Ravitz wrote:
>> 
>> Me three. #2 Hand count. When in doubt, use the tried and true.
>> 
>> Evan
>> 
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Ralph Shnelvar wrote:
>> 
>> > Dear Paul:
>> >
>> > Me, too.  #2.
>> >
>> > Open source is not open hardware.
>> >
>> > How hard would it be to put in hardware that looks for a bit pattern in
>> > memory that switches the software from "real mode" to "test mode" so that
>> > bogus data moves through the system?
>> >
>> > The answer to that rhetorical question is: Not hard at all.
>> >
>> > Ralph Shnelvar
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:32:18 -0700, you wrote:
>> >
>> > >Evan,
>> > >
>> > >Lets take a poll right now and see how people feel.
>> > >
>> > >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.
>> > >
>> > >-----
>> > >and I'll start with #2
>> > >
>> > >
>> >