Angry

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:10:26 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
: :

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.

What method would you employ to assure that the receipts are not
forgeries?

The same method that assures that paper ballots aren't forgeries. If you
go back a few messages, I suggested that *two* receipts would be printed &
verified by the voter; one would be given to the polling official, just as
paper ballots are handled now. Then, at least one machine selected at
random from each precinct would have its electronic tally audited against
the receipt. In the case of a discrepancy, a 100% audit would be performed
at that precinct.

Neil

If the rationalize is the computer program makes mistakes then you must
accept that either the electronic vote or the paper receipt could be
wrong. There is no guarantee that the paper receipt is correct since the
very same computer program that drives the electronic totals is printing
the paper receipt.

Anytime the screen vote and the paper receipt do not agree, you have to
give the voter a chance to fix it or call for an election judge. If you
don't, then which vote is valid.

Counting by hand is impossible. The three re-count counties in Florida
in 2000 cast 1.6 million votes. All you need is one hand counter to
sneeze and you start all over.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
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

If the rationalize is the computer program makes mistakes

The rationale is that the computer program is suspect of being
deliberately programmed to misrepresent the voting.

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

"sfb" wrote in message news:GLXsf.9909$Q73.913@trnddc03...
If the rationalize is the computer program makes mistakes then you must
accept that either the electronic vote or the paper receipt could be
wrong. There is no guarantee that the paper receipt is correct since the
very same computer program that drives the electronic totals is printing
the paper receipt.

Anytime the screen vote and the paper receipt do not agree, you have to
give the voter a chance to fix it or call for an election judge. If you
don't, then which vote is valid.

Counting by hand is impossible. The three re-count counties in Florida in
2000 cast 1.6 million votes. All you need is one hand counter to sneeze
and you start all over.

Counting by hand is possible, it just requires some good organisation and
competence.
The UK votes with paper ballots and by about 4am Friday after the polls have
closed at 10m Thursday most of the seats in parliament have been declared.
The outlying constituencies in the Scottish Islands declare by lunch time on
the Friday. By 3pm Friday the outgoing government has resigned and the new
government is appointed. The ballot involves 26 million votes across 650
constitutencies in the general election and as many again in the various
local elections that take place on the same day. Recounts are common when
the margin is down to a few hundred votes.

There has been stiff competition amongst constituencies to be first to
declare. Sunderland South has repeated its performance in the last three
elections and in 2005 declared the incumbent re-elected as MP with a
majority of 11,059 at approximately 10.45pm

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