[EM] Mike: Repeating my observation that you didn't answer my main question

[Paul Kislanko]

Which still begs the more important question. My point was that
hand-counting ONLY verifies the accuracy of the original count. It does not
address the (more important) questions of whether my ballot was counted as I
intended either time.

 

Even if you alter every vote-collecting method to match something suitable
for a hand-count, all you've done is verify the count. Fraud or mistakes do
not typically come from counting errors.

 

But the technology I described exists and can be used. If every ballot has a
unique PKC marker that only I can decode and the counted ballots are made
public record, then you can count them by hand and I can verify that 

 

a)      the ones you counted included mine AND 

b)      mine was the same when you counted it as my copy of what I dropped
into the ballot box.

 

If those verifications are not possible the accuracy of the count is the
least of my concerns.

 

From: election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com
[mailto:election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Ossipoff
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 11:57 AM
To: election-methods at electorama.com
Subject: [EM] Paul: Repeating my answer about what would be counted

 

Paul:

 

You said:

 

Mike, I asked what ballots are you going to hand-count.

 

[endquote]

 

And I answered you. I thought that my answer was specific.

 

1, We would count a hand-marked ballot. A piece of paper or cardboard which
you had marked,

eilther by pen or by punching it with a stylus. No machine would be involved
in the process.

 

2. Or, if, on the other hand, you voted by touchscreen (for some reason), as
you spoke of, the

voting machine would print out a paper copy of your vote. You would
carefully check it, to

make sure that it was as you intended. Then you'd put it in the slot of the
ballot-box.

 

Then, along with the other ballots, would be handcounted, a) as the primary
and only count mode; or 

b) as a backup to a machine count, in the event that the machine count is
contested.

 

This is the 3rd time that I've answered that question.Can anyone else
suggest another way

that I could word the answer, so that it would be clearer?

 

While I'm repeating my answer, I might as well also repeat that, unless a
machine count

can be made provbably secure, the count should be _only_ a handcount.

 

Y

 I vote by touching a
touch-screen, and  the machine gives me a receipt. You say I COULD give you
a paper ballot to hand-count, 

 

[endquote]

 

Or I suppose that you could keep or dispose of it, if you don't want there
to be a 

reliable record of your vote :-)

 

You continued:

 

1but if I just voted by pressing a portion of a
touch-sensitive-display-screen, what are you going to hand-count?

 

[endquote]

 

The paper or cardboard  ballot that the machine has printed out, based on
your touchscreen vote, 

after you have carefully examined the ballot to make sure that it is as you
want it to be,

and then deposited it in the slot in the ballot box.

 

As I said, that handcount would be a) the primary and only count; or b) a
backup to a machine count,

just in case the machine count result is contested.

.

 

 

You continued:

 

My touch
is not verifiable by a hand-count of what the machine recorded. 

 

[endquote]

 

Of course it is, if you have carefully examined the hardcopy that the
machine has printed

out, and then deoposited it in the slot of lthe ballot box.

 

In any case, I don't advocate the use of touchscreen, or any other kind of
machine balloting. It

would be better to use a simple cardboard or paper ballot, marked by pen or
punch-stylus. 

 

But, if machine balloting is used, as you speak of, then at least there
should be a hardcopy that

the voter would examine before putting in the ballot-box slot.

 

You continued:

 

It can only
be verified by asking me if what your machine's record matches what the
machine printed out for me. 

 

[endquote]

 

Ungrammatical and difficultly-decipherable sentence. But yes, the voter
would be asked to examine

the printed hardcopy, to ensure that it is the ballot that s/he wants to
vote.

 

No, it would be quite pointless to ask you if what the machine recorded
matches what it printed out. How

could you, or anyone, know that? There would be no particular reason to
believe that such a match

exists. The hardcopy is the reliable record of your vote.

 

You continued:

 

And you can't "hand count" that without asking
me if what you're counting matched my ballot.

 

[endquote]

 

Nonsense. What we'd be handcounting would _be_ your ballot.

 

You continued:

 

You continued:

 

And you can't do THAT without
violating the principles of all voting systems.

 

[endquote]

 

Don't worry,no one will ask you if what you put in the ballot box is

your ballot. I'm guessing that you're afraid that someone will know

which ballot was voted by Paul Kislanko. No one will know that.

But, what we will know is that every ballot put into the ballot box

was examined carefully by the voter (or should have been), to ensure

that it is what the voter wants hir ballot to say.

 

I emphasize that I don't advocate using a machine for balloting or count at
all. 

 

Mike Ossipoff

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120429/ad8d438c/attachment-0003.htm>