Re: Hand Recounts of votes recorded on DREs

[Barbara Simons <simons@xxxxxxx>]

Pete's comment is so obvious I cannot understand why anyone would even
question it.  A "hand recount" of paperless DRE votes should come up with
the same tally that the DRE originally produced, unless the DREs are really
really broken.

BUT, suppose there was a software bug (or malicious code) that corrupted the
votes so that they were originally incorrectly recorded, as happened in
Mahoning County, Ohio, where numerous voters reported that when they
attempted to vote for John Kerry, the vote showed up as a vote for George
Bush.  We don't know - and can't know - whether or not those machine
correctly recorded the intent of the voters, but if it recorded them
incorrectly, then those same faulty records will appear in the printed paper
versions.

I find it amazing that anyone would defend a system that has the lack of
transparency of paperless DREs.

Since the standards produced by our effort are likely to be adopted
nationally, we bear a tremendous responsibility.  We have the opportunity to
develop standards that will minimize the options for corruption and maximize
openness and transparency.  To do otherwise is irresponsible and even - dare
I say it - unpatriotic.

Regards,
Barbara Simons, writing from Australia - which is why I have been unable to
participate in email and phone discussions.

On 12/5/04 16:43, "Pete Klammer" <pklammer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> A "hand recount" of paperless DRE votes is patently absurd, meaningless, and
> futile.