Re: DC Article: "Larimer Shows Up Boulder"

[Paul E Condon <pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 05:54:37PM -0700, Evan Daniel Ravitz wrote:
> 
> You're forgetting that there are non-electronic ways to satisfy HAVA's 
> disabled provisions, which were mentioned just here today.
> 
> Please don't try to put me at odds with Hillary.
> 
> Please don't try again to put on your wisdom act. You still haven't 
> recognized or apologized for going back and forth between saying 
> hand-counting is illegal (and we who've been consistently for it for 3 
> years should know it) and favoring hand-counting. It's all in the 
> archive.
> 
> The old political model of talking out of both sides of your mouth 
> doesn't wash anymore. ALL your words on this list are online.
> 

It can relieve some psychotic tension to berate Paul T., but it doesn't
get verifiable voting. For verifiable voting, we should have more than
one way to do each step in the process, and intermediate check points
where in-process data can be checked against logical rules, and process
steps repeated. In particular, one doesn't have verifiable voting if
you only count the votes once. But, realistically, it will be hard to
achieve frequent recounts just to see that the system is working if
only hand counting is done. 

So I suggest that it is important to have paper ballots that are
designed so that they can be counted _both_ by hand _and_ by
computerized machine. _And_, be sure to have the paper sturdy enough
to stand up under the wear and tear of a count and several
recounts. Then, we can do both hand and machine counts and very soon
we will learn from experience what are the problems of each and the
rules for doing each as best it can be done. This is not presented as
a 'silver bullet' solution. It is just a suggestion for a way to do
things that will gradually gather real world experience as to what
works. Now, we have only faith based technology. We can do better.

-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx