Angry

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"Jose" wrote in message
[...]
An electronic voting machine whose software OTOH is open, public, and
whose compiling and loading into standard interchangable chips and
media is properly supervised is much more difficult to rig. I would
have more confidence in such a machine.

I would not.
[...]
I do agree that an open source software voting machine is preferable.
But IMHO, the more important aspects are for the voting machine to
provide a paper record of the vote, and for the voting results to be
audited.

Specifically, electronic voting machines ought to spit out a paper
ballot very similar to what is used today. The voter should inspect
the ballot to verify it has recorded their vote accurately. Then,
some small percentage of voting machines should be selected
(randomly, of course) for their output votes to be compared to
manually counted paper ballots from those machines.

I agree with you. Further, the percentage of sampled machines should not
be "small", as in 1 or 2%, but significant, as in at least one machine
from each precinct. The paper proofs should be printed at the same time,
with the voter inspecting both for accuracy, and then give one copy to the
registrar (or designated official). That copy would be used to verify the
electronic tally. The question becomes, what to do if there is a
discrepancy?

It really angers me that such basic and simple methodology is not even
being discussed, much less that Diebold is pawning off an approach that is
completely unverifiable, and that politicians are buying into it.

Neil

It isn't a simple as just print a receipt. If you print before the
voter presses the final button and the voter changes their mind, the
receipt and the machine do not agree. If you print a second receipt then
you have two receipts for one voter. If the receipt and the machine
disagree and the voter presses the final button anyway, which one is the
true vote?

There is no way to count the receipts by hand so now you need a entire
new set of machines to count receipts which brings you back to many of
the problems with punch cards.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message news_Psf.48165

I agree with you. Further, the percentage of sampled machines should
not
be "small", as in 1 or 2%, but significant, as in at least one machine
from each precinct. The paper proofs should be printed at the same
time,
with the voter inspecting both for accuracy, and then give one copy to
the
registrar (or designated official). That copy would be used to verify
the
electronic tally. The question becomes, what to do if there is a
discrepancy?

It really angers me that such basic and simple methodology is not even
being discussed, much less that Diebold is pawning off an approach
that is
completely unverifiable, and that politicians are buying into it.

Neil

Recently, sfb posted:

It isn't a simple as just print a receipt. If you print before the
voter presses the final button and the voter changes their mind, the
receipt and the machine do not agree. If you print a second receipt
then you have two receipts for one voter. If the receipt and the
machine disagree and the voter presses the final button anyway, which
one is the true vote?

Why would a receipt *ever* be printed before the "final" button is
pressed? At that point, printing them in duplicate is not a problem.

There is no way to count the receipts by hand so now you need a entire
new set of machines to count receipts which brings you back to many of
the problems with punch cards.

Why couldn't receipts be counted by hand? As a method of verification, the
task isn't all that large. Still, if the receipts followed a standard
layout, they could be counted by machine quite easily.

Regards,

Neil

People have been rigging lever machines since Moses was a pup.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
The only difference between the lever voting machine and the
electronic voting machine is the technology. In both the voter does
something on the front and the magic machine internals increments a
counter.

You mean both are voting machines?

The difference in the technology is 100% the issue. A manual lever
voting machine is mechanical, can be examined by anybody with even a
little bit of mechanical aptitude, and watched in progress to ensure
that the machine does what it says it will do. It is a fairly open
device. It would be hard to "rig" it undetectably. Whether these
machines are in fact examined before voting is not a function of the
machine, it is a function of the law.

An electronic voting machine works by software. There is nothing to
"examine" except the code, and if the code is secret and proprietary,
then there is no way to ensure that the machine actually does what it
says it does. No public official, indeed virtually nobody except the
programmer (and sometimes not even the programmer) really knows what
goes on inside the box. If the software were set up to move every
fiftieth vote into a different slot, but only on November 2, and only
if a few other conditions are met, nobody would ever find out. The
machine is inherently impenetrable.

An electronic voting machine whose software OTOH is open, public, and
whose compiling and loading into standard interchangable chips and
media is properly supervised is much more difficult to rig. I would
have more confidence in such a machine.

Now... what kind of voting machine is being foisted on us?

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

People have been rigging lever machines since Moses was a pup.

Yes, they have. I'm not suggesting that fraud is a new thing, nor that
any political party is immune. There are no clean hands in politics.

What I =am= suggesting, is that secret software running on voting
machines makes it trivial for wholesale undetectable vote rigging.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

People have been rigging lever machines since Moses was a pup.

Yes, they have. I'm not suggesting that fraud is a new thing, nor that
any political party is immune. There are no clean hands in politics.

What I =am= suggesting, is that secret software running on voting
machines makes it trivial for wholesale undetectable vote rigging.

It would be interesting to apply the same scrutiny and oversight that
slot machines have (imagine someone trying to rig one to scam the
....er...um... respectable businessman running casinos).

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

"Jose" wrote in message
news

This is news to me. I thought that the use of electronic voting with
secret and proprietary software, no paper trail, and no way to verify
after the fact that votes were counted the way voters think they ought to
be counted came from Republicans presently in office.


You thought wrong. Democrats are even opposed to ensuring that only
eligible voters vote.

You thought wrong. Democrats are even opposed to ensuring that only
eligible voters vote.

You mean like our illustrious Governor Vilsack, who with the wave of his
magic wand gave the vote to convicted felons in Iowa?

Do you think he did the math, and determined which way most felons vote?

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:U4wsf.681823$xm3.5087@attbi_s21...

You mean like our illustrious Governor Vilsack, who with the wave of his
magic wand gave the vote to convicted felons in Iowa?

Do you think he did the math, and determined which way most felons vote?


Undoubtedly. Democrats oppose voter ID for the same reason Republicans
support it; the fraudulent vote goes overwhelmingly to Democrats.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jose" wrote in message
news

This is news to me. I thought that the use of electronic voting with
secret and proprietary software, no paper trail, and no way to verify
after the fact that votes were counted the way voters think they ought
to
be counted came from Republicans presently in office.


You thought wrong. Democrats are even opposed to ensuring that only
eligible voters vote.


All the above summed up in 1960 by Mayor Daley. Count the votes (real and
imaginary), announce Kennedy wins big and 5 minutes later not a scrap of
evidence a vote ever took place.