Angry

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 11:35:36 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
::

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


That's a reasoned solution. Why do you feel it necessary to *add* a
receipt to be given to the voter? What would be the advantage of
electronic voting over the current *one* ballot system?

Personally, I think it's going to be nearly impossible to insure an
accurate electronic vote tally much as it was in the
paper-vote/voting-machine era. But here's an idea:

Provide a real-time running total of each ballot choice on the
voter's display screen, so that s/he can confirm their vote
incremented accurately. The real-time vote tally could be
continuously monitored by representatives of each party/candidate?
If a dispute should arise, the sealed camera that monitored the
running tally could be consulted. Under no circumstances should
anyone other than the voter be able to modify the running tally;
their must be no way for administrator intervention to modify the
running tally.

Everything occurs in real-time. The voter confirms his own vote.
There is no necessity to print anything. Of course, there's the issue
of how to Handel the situation when/if the voter sees his vote affect
the tally erroneously.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:29:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
::

Clinton lied under oath.


What do *you* believe was his lie?


According to the logic espoused by the law professor in this link:
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf it's not
entirely clear that Clinton actually did lie. At any rate, what a
president does in his private life, as long as it's not criminal,
unconstitutional and has no affect on his sworn duties, is no ones
business but his.

DID CLINTON LIE?: DEFINING “SEXUAL RELATIONS”
PETER TIERSMA*

With the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton
now a distant memory, we can step back and consider the matter
somewhat more dispassionately than was possible in the midst of
such an intense and highly politicized debate. The focus of the
impeachment hearings was on whether Clinton perjured himself and
engaged in obstruction of justice when answering questions
relating to the nature of his relationship with a former White
House intern, Monica Lewinsky. I will limit my observations in
this Article to the question of whether Clinton committed perjury,
and in particular, I will focus on whether he lied when he denied
having had a “sexual relationship” with Lewinsky.

Yet the real subject of this Article is not the Clinton
impeachment, nor is it primarily about perjury law, although I
will have things to say about each. It is really about ...

You count a
sample of 20 paper receipts and Al is ahead 15 to 5. Other than Al won
the sample, you have learned absolutely nothing about the correctness of
the total vote.

Right. Then you compare the paper sample to the electronic sample and
find that Al is ahead 12-8 in the electronic sample. You now know,
which you didn't before, that the voting is rigged (or busted). Had the
tallys matched, you would have more confidence than before that the
voting was fairly counted electronically, and could trust the other
electronic tallys.

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

Provide a real-time running total of each ballot choice on the
voter's display screen, so that s/he can confirm their vote
incremented accurately.

And what detects whether =this= is rigged or not? Also, anybody else
watching the tally can figure out how you voted.

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

"Larry Dighera" wrote
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:29:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
::

Clinton lied under oath.


What do *you* believe was his lie?


According to the logic espoused by the law professor in this link:
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf it's not
entirely clear that Clinton actually did lie.

Sorry, that's a bunch of BS. If you expect to communicate clearly with
another person you must use words that you both know the meaning of, you
cannot use words that can be misinterpreted, unless you intend to deceive
the other person right from the start.

When Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman" he knew exactly what
the word "sex" meant and what it implied to his audience, regardless of how
much technical BS people want to throw into the equation after the fact.

It's just too bad that common sense is so rare these days in the US.

"sfb" wrote in message news:8K4tf.9457$3Y3.8158@trnddc02...
Please explain what "auditing" a sample of the paper receipts establishes
since the only thing that matters is the total votes cast for each
candidate.

Please explain what "auditing" a sample of taxpayers establishes since the
only thing that matters is the total revenue paid by all taxpayers.

An election isn't a production line making a gazillion identical widgets
per day where sampling will tell you something about meeting
specifications.

Actually, in some respects it is exactly like a production line making a
gazillion identical widgets per day. The main difference is that when
you're making widgets, usually you don't have to worry about someone
intentionally screwing it up.

But otherwise, the concept of a random check for some subset of the total
production is identical. By auditing, one can have some degree of
confidence regarding the complete "production output", even without
double-checking 100% of your production output.

A election produces a different product for each candidate on the ballot.
The only way to know how many votes each candidate got is counting every
single vote.

The auditing isn't about knowing "how many votes each candidate got".

Early in the day 2004 exit polls predicted a Kerry win only to be proven
wrong by the actual votes since the sampling was apparently biased to only
asking Kerry voters.

Non-sequitur, and besides there is still ample disagreement regarding the
true reason(s) behind the discrepancy you're describing.

Pete

"Nick Danger" wrote in message
. ..
Sorry, that's a bunch of BS. If you expect to communicate clearly with
another person you must use words that you both know the meaning of, you
cannot use words that can be misinterpreted, unless you intend to deceive
the other person right from the start.

You mean like saying things like "we know for a fact that Iraq has weapons
of mass destruction?"

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:09:00 GMT, Jose
wrote in ::

Provide a real-time running total of each ballot choice on the
voter's display screen, so that s/he can confirm their vote
incremented accurately.

And what detects whether =this= is rigged or not?

I doubt there is any foolproof way to assure an accurate tally, but in
my scenario those monitoring the real-time tally would be charged with
assuring the validity.

Also, anybody else watching the tally can figure out how you voted.

If all that was visible were the various vote tallies and numerous
voters were casting their ballots simultaneously, how would they know
for sure?

Granted, there are some issues with my scenario.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:38:49 GMT, "Nick Danger"
wrote in
::

When Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman"

If you had read the referenced article, you'd know that that is not
what Clinton said under oath.

If all that was visible were the various vote tallies and numerous
voters were casting their ballots simultaneously, how would they know
for sure?

In the smaller districts and towns, somebody observant enough could
probably figure out how each person voted. There are many cases where
votes are non-simultaneous. I've done something similar myself in a
different environment based simply on precise statistics after the fact;
doing it live would be trivial.

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