[Election-Methods] [Fwd: Re: [RangeVoting] Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines]

[Dave Ketchum]

Thank you!  Shamos, while long, is well worth studying!

Are there any useful responses?

Which of the attempts you list at the end can legitimately claim to be
a step ahead?

DWK

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 19:50:17 -0400 Rick Carback wrote:
 > The problem with hand counting is that it is not always clear that the
 > record tabulated was the record generated by voters. You are trading
 > something with a 40-50 year history of not being good enough with 
something
 > that has thousands of years of history showing it's not good 
enough. It's a
 > system we know doesn't work. An argument that says the older way 
was less
 > bad is perfectly acceptable, but you have to concede that it leaves 
much to
 > be desired. All but the fraction of a percent of the observers and 
counters
 > involved in the process get no assurance that their votes were counted
 > faithfully. You might want to read and respond to Shamos:
 >
 > http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/people/faculty/mshamos/paper.htm
 >
 > If you are interested in advancing the status quo, what you really 
need is
 > something that operates on the actual record, a zero-knowledge 
proof of some
 > sort that lets the authority prove they properly counted the votes 
but not
 > who voted for what. See Scantegrity, Punchscan, Twin, VAV, ThreeBallot,
 > Pret-a-Voter, and the numerous other systems that have recently been
 > designed to try to solve this problem.
 >
 > -R
 >
 > full disclosure: I work on Scantegrity and Punchscan.
-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.