It seems more probable to me from the limited amount I have read so far that the person either is an opportunist, or thinks that they have a case. I am leaning towards opportunist thus far, but I dont claim to know...
On the jurist issue, I dont know about you personally, but it has been my observation that many in the middle and upper classes do all they can to avoid serving on juries. Assuming this is the case, who else would serve?
The one thing an electronic system would add would be speed. Quicker returns. I agree that quickness should not trump correctness and recountablity or trustablity.
I agree, ( and I thought I had written so ) that the ballot must be the record, no recount, nor verification of the voters intent is possible without it.
I agree, that small scale counting is the way to go, I dont think there was anything in my post that indictated that I wanted to see centralized counting ( althought I can see that I was not specific about that... )
You cant do it all on computer and have a high assurance of correctness.
YOu could have a computer print a machine and human readable ticket.
Then ( hopefully, made by a separate company ) another machine to read and count. Problems would still be possible ( printing some only machine readable token on the ticket by the first, then read by the second, while the human readable part indicated the actual ). This would be discoverable by auditing by human counting of the human readable part for a certain percentage of the voting precincts ( and when requested by interested parties... )
Quite, but now you need to answer how you get that formally specified, verified proven code onto each and every machine, and ensure that only the code that you ran thru your proving system is in place for actual voting.
And if the original data you are working from is bad?
How can you tell?
And yes, the voter needs to be anonymous, but the voter can verify his vote. No, he/she/it does not leave the voting place with a reciept, he/she/it looks at something the machine spits out with human readable text on it that another machine can read and count ( and recount ).
I think what you are missing that a recount is pointless if the machine just tallys votes internally. You cant tell that it did it correctly ( redirecting 10% of the votes to be opposite what the voter chose, for an example ). That data can be intentially corrupted.
Yup. So you would think that they would know process and how their system fits in it.
An ATM hands you a reciept that you can verify for correctness and walk away with for disputing problems later.
I dont know that voters should walk away with a copy of the ballot, I understand that there are exit issues with that. But they should be able to verify that their vote is cast as they intended.
That is all quite true, but shouldnt we be doing all we can to drive problems out of the system? To make it harder and not easier to take an election by fraud?
Would you "get over it" if the republicans were to be losing and there were reasonable questions about the voting procedures?
I suspect not. And I hope not. If the allegations have a basis, then it should come out. If they dont, then that too, should come out.
The methodology used in the machines is suspect. I dont think anyone would want to buy or use an ATM machine without the ability to audit it's transactions and know that that audit is sound. Voting seems important enough to invest the time and energy into getting it right and above reasonable question.
I dont think it is so much right/left as it is right/wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
They did. Shhhh.
We had to change the title quick like after the truth was printed.
Cant have that getting out.
Why does this have to do with hating Microsoft?
It seems more probable to me from the limited amount I have
read so far that the person either is an opportunist, or
thinks that they have a case. I am leaning towards
opportunist thus far, but I dont claim to know...
On the jurist issue, I dont know about you personally, but
it has been my observation that many in the middle and upper
classes do all they can to avoid serving on juries. Assuming
this is the case, who else would serve?
That would indeed offer some kind of deterrence.
Perhaps too much.
Like, maybe, BellSouth? :-)
Is Windows ready for the Enterprise?
I have it .
$10,000.00 american, or you will never see it again!
Heh, you put "do do" in your comment.
heh, heh.
You have only pushed the problem around.
1: how do you confirm that the code in use during voting was the approved, tested, certified code?
2: how do you know that the run time is that standard off the shelf VM?
That was South Carolina, I presume?
But seriously, how do you do *anything*, since you never did pull out?
It's a problem I would like to experience for a while, at least.
The one thing an electronic system would add would be
speed. Quicker returns. I agree that quickness should
not trump correctness and recountablity or trustablity.
I agree, ( and I thought I had written so ) that the
ballot must be the record, no recount, nor verification
of the voters intent is possible without it.
I agree, that small scale counting is the way to go,
I dont think there was anything in my post that indictated
that I wanted to see centralized counting ( althought I
can see that I was not specific about that... )
But you still dont know that the source code and the binary
running on the machine are related to each other in any way.
A few unguarded voting machines, a few hours time, tampered
machines ( possibly ).
The system around what you are putting together needs to be
accounted for, not just the nominal code.
And yes, nothing is absolutely perfect, but that does not
mean that we should accept less than the best we can do
for something as important as this.
yup. does not meet my idea of what the requirements ought to be.
And I am sure there are things I am missing that complicate things
even more.
You cant do it all on computer and have a high assurance of correctness.
YOu could have a computer print a machine and human readable ticket.
Then ( hopefully, made by a separate company ) another machine to read
and count. Problems would still be possible ( printing some only machine
readable token on the ticket by the first, then read by the second, while
the human readable part indicated the actual ). This would be discoverable
by auditing by human counting of the human readable part for a certain
percentage of the voting precincts ( and when requested by interested
parties... )
I thnk that does the trick.
Course, so does the old system.
Quite, but now you need to answer how you get that
formally specified, verified proven code onto each
and every machine, and ensure that only the code
that you ran thru your proving system is in place
for actual voting.
And if the original data you are working from is bad?
How can you tell?
And yes, the voter needs to be anonymous, but the voter
can verify his vote. No, he/she/it does not leave the
voting place with a reciept, he/she/it looks at something
the machine spits out with human readable text on it
that another machine can read and count ( and recount ).
I think what you are missing that a recount is pointless
if the machine just tallys votes internally. You cant
tell that it did it correctly ( redirecting 10% of the
votes to be opposite what the voter chose, for an example ).
That data can be intentially corrupted.
I cant imagine they want to be able to review the code.
I can imagine they want to be able to stand the complete as
used system up for testing and verification.
OK. Now, with your script, perform a recount.
Verify that a miscount did not take place.
Prove that each voter's vote was recorded as they intended.
Show that only voters eligible to vote voted, and
that each only voted once.
Only if it were a dup.
You could power it with 2 D cells, just like the the article!
Yup. So you would think that they would know process and how their system fits in it.
An ATM hands you a reciept that you can verify for correctness
and walk away with for disputing problems later.
I dont know that voters should walk away with a copy of
the ballot, I understand that there are exit issues with
that. But they should be able to verify that their
vote is cast as they intended.
That is all quite true, but shouldnt we be doing all we can to drive
problems out of the system? To make it harder and not easier to
take an election by fraud?
Would you "get over it" if the republicans were to be losing
and there were reasonable questions about the voting procedures?
I suspect not. And I hope not. If the allegations
have a basis, then it should come out. If they dont,
then that too, should come out.
The methodology used in the machines is suspect. I dont
think anyone would want to buy or use an ATM machine
without the ability to audit it's transactions and know
that that audit is sound. Voting seems important enough
to invest the time and energy into getting it right and
above reasonable question.
I dont think it is so much right/left as it is right/wrong.
Uh, actually, she is.
If you could make sure to get the TPS cover sheets right, that would be great.
Thanks.
If they had that much control, they would take control,
have the person go buy the product...
Er ah, wait...
What did you think the plan was!?!?!
See, they are working together, the opponent and he.
Good pol, bad pol. They take turns.