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

[Dave Ketchum]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 18:24:09 -0600 Kathy Dopp wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com> wrote:
> 
>>More complete defenses are possible with electronics.
> 
> 
> Totally FALSE statement.

Sad that we cannot look at the same reality!

Conceded that rogue programmers can do all kinds of destruction if 
permitted, we need to evict the rogues and proceed carefully.
> 
> In fact there has never been even a theoretical design for an
> electronic voting system or even electronic paper ballot vote counting
> system that does not have known security leaks.

This is not proof that quality is impossible.
> 
> In fact some computer scientists just recently mathematically PROVED
> that it is impossible to even verify that the certified software is
> actually running on a voting machine.

Tell us more, a bit more convincingly as to fact behind this opinion - 
assuming proper defenses.
> 
> You are showing a lack of knowledge in the field of computer science
> by making such an obviously false, already disproven statement.
> 
> Luckily most people disagree with your incorrect opinion and another
> state, KY just joined the list of states planning to scrap unauditable
> e-ballot voting systems, joining, TN, IA, FL, CA, MD, and a few other
> states and a lot of other counties that don't immediately come to mind
> now.
> 
Sad that we have been afflicted with such a surplus of failures, 
complicated by fact that many of them could and should have been recognized 
as such, and disposed of earlier in their life.
> 
>>Mixed into this, Plurality is easily done with paper; better systems, such
>>as Condorcet, are difficult with paper, but easily handled with electronics.
> 
> 
> Well that is a very good reason to avoid implementing them - because
> if they can't be easily done with paper ballots, then they cannot be
> assured to be counted accurately.

Mixed in with this is Plurality's inability to accurately measure and count 
voters' true desires - a reason for looking for a more accurate method, 
even if it may be more difficult to perform.
> 
>>>Watch this film for an education. It's great.
>>>http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~seclab/projects/voting/
>>>
They truly did look for, and found, bunches of flaws.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Kathy
-- 
  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.