Angry

"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.


Additionally, just because a receipt is printed it does not mean that the
vote recorded is the same as printed on the receipt (screen says vote for
"X", receipt says vote for "X", record vote as a vote for "Y"). It appears
there is no way to insure fraud is not a part of the voting process. The
only thing that can be done is try and minimize the fraud.

Receipts can be easily faked also. Even with the bat codes on them, if
let's say 6 million were faked, are we going to try to recertify 6
million receipts by hand?

"Tom Conner" wrote in message
nk.net...
Additionally, just because a receipt is printed it does not mean that the
vote recorded is the same as printed on the receipt

True. That's why a hand-recount is needed of some percentage of the paper
ballots, as an audit of the machine-counted votes.

[...] It appears
there is no way to insure fraud is not a part of the voting process.

As long as human beings are involved at any part of the process, there will
be the potential for fraud. The problem is that currently, the potential
for fraud is VASTLY higher than it should be.

The only thing that can be done is try and minimize the fraud.

Indeed. So, let's do that thing.

Pete

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?

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 you are going to use the paper receipt to recount, then you can't
allow them to leave the polling place. Imagine the law suits when you
have a million electronic votes and people only returned 500, 000
receipts.

"Flyingmonk" wrote in message
ups.com...
Receipts can be easily faked also. Even with the bat codes on them,
if
let's say 6 million were faked, are we going to try to recertify 6
million receipts by hand?

Hand counting a sample proves nothing as you can't assume the identical
distribution of votes in the uncounted votes.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message

True. That's why a hand-recount is needed of some percentage of the
paper ballots, as an audit of the machine-counted votes.

"...with loads of free time to spare to criticize
and belittle your leaders? "

Care to document?

OBTW, getting a blow-job in the White House is not a sign of
leadership.

"Belongs to the people" does not mean you have free access.

"...your public opinion polls control policy." This is not the Clinton
White House. Not my "...public opinion polls." I don't like public
opinion polls.

You do a lot of ranting and raving. U R Borderline WACKO! No! U R
WACKO!!!!!

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.

So?? How do distinguish deliberate fraud from stuff happens? The problem
is you have two votes - electronic and paper - that do not agree. How do
you know which is correct?

Heading back on topic, the altimeter says 5,000 feet and the GPS 6,000.
Which is correct?

"Jose" wrote in message
t...
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.