[EM] Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines

[rob brown]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Kathy Dopp <kathy.dopp at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> As virtually all (all I know) independent computer scientists (who do
> not profit from certifying or working for VVV's - vulture voting
> vendors)  agree, it is *not* possible to "fix" DREs because their
> fundamental design is flawed. I.e. Any machine cast or machine printed
> record of ballots is not going to work.
>
> The flaws of DRE paper roll ballot printers include (there is a much
> longer list):
>
> Studies show that fewer than 30% of voters check machine-printed paper
> ballot roll records and fewer than 30% of voters who check (or about
> 10% of all voters) accurately proofread their machine-printed paper
> ballot roll records to detect any errors, so that a programmer can
> switch up to 90% of available target votes in a way that no audit can
> detect.  Also there is a "two strikes and you are out" rule that
> prevents the most diligent voter from having a machine-printed paper
> ballot record that matches the voter's choices.  A voter can only
> cancel ballot casting twice due to an incorrect printed paper roll
> record. On the third try, the voter receives an error message on the
> screen warning that the voter has only one more chance to cast their
> ballot.  On the third try, the paper roll ballot record whizzes
> quickly inside the canister WITHOUT GIVING THE VOTER A CHANCE TO SEE
> THE PAPER RECORD!
>

The "two strikes you are out" rule is not inherent to machine voting -- that
is fixable, obviously.

Regardless, are you suggesting that a programmer could steal an election by
just hoping that that every one of the people who had it fail twice in a row
is going to simply say "oh well" and go home, rather than raise holy hell
about it?

As a programmer myself, I can tell you that any non-stupid (but evil)
programmer would have it do it correctly the second time....I mean, you know
they are looking that time, so why push your luck for one vote?  So the "2
strikes and you're out", silly as it may be, is hardly the issue.

I can also tell you that much of the issue here is far out of the field of
computer science, and is more in the area of sociology/psychology with a
little game theory and economics thrown in.

I don't disagree that there are problems with machine voting, some easier to
fix than others.  (a paper trail is an absolute necessity, for instance, as
is open source code)  Still I think you are blowing things out of
proportion  -- to a large enough degree that your propoganda has pulled me
out of my typical lurk mode on the list.


> Shamos is considered a rogue among computer scientists and I am fairly
> certain that Shamos does not have any degree in computer science, as
> is true of most "experts" who support DREs.
>

And I am fairly certain that you didn't spend two minutes researching, as
you'd have easily found that he does indeed have a phD in computer science
from Yale.  Which gives me one more reason to suspect the facts you
present.  (don't take this as an endorsement of what Shamos says, just a
reaction to your logically and factually unsound propaganda)

-rob
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20080812/6455dfc1/attachment.htm>