|
My guess is that this was a vote by Kell for
handcounting. Or is it arguementative? I personally cannot support a computer tally at this
point in time. But I was just asking if list members supported hand counts or
computer counts. It was a simple question. -----Original
Message----- 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) Classic. The question was
chocolate or vanilla, and you chose strawberry Do you Yahoo!? |