[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Hand count or open source
Please correct me if I'm wrong or my logic is in error:
1) There is good reason to believe that all current voting software is, in theory, subject to fraud and error.
2) There is good reason to believe that all current voting software is, in theory subject to undetectable fraud and error.
3) Even if there were a means to detect fraud and error, every time and without any doubt (should the question arise), the only people qualified to make such a determination would be a tiny number of computer security professionals, whose word the citizens would be required to accept.
Does open source really change things? Can't self-deleting bugs be planted, leaving no trace of themselves?
If the above are true, then it seems that hand counting is the only current means of vote tabulation that offers a very high level of transparency, verifiability, and accuracy.
Neal's hybrid (opscan simultaneously checked by statistically significant hand count) might be viable, though I'd guess 1% hand count check might not be enough.
What's wrong with handcounting?
What's wrong with Neal's position?
Shouldn't an average Joe or Jane be able to understand the fundamentals of vote tabulating, rather than rely on experts?
kell
3)
Some Guy <someguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
[|>]
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com