<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Mike, your questions become more and more incomprehensible.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>You said “</span>I repeat that I don't oppose machine-counting if it can be made as secure as handcounting can be.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Wherefrom and how did the word “secure” enter this discussion? Whatever handcounting is it isn’t “secure.”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Seriously, you think hand-counting whatever you get from the “official ballot boxes” is a “verification” of the vote-counting?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It’s not, as we repeatedly point out.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>You argue over and over that the only “verifiable” counts have to be based upon INSECURE notions of paper ballots in boxes.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Suppose we change every ballot-collection-method in existence to paper ballots suitable for hand-counting.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Show how you can PROVE to me that the paper ballots you hand-counted included mine.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com [mailto:election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Michael Ossipoff<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 30, 2012 5:10 PM<br><b>To:</b> election-methods@electorama.com<br><b>Subject:</b> [EM] Paul: Count issues.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Paul:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>You said:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>You argue we should only use paper ballots to make your<br>hand-counting easier, to which I would say we should only use electronic<br>ballots that won't end up in a landfill or be changed by the primary<br>hand-counter before you get to "verify" them.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>[endquote]<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>How is the primary handcounter going to steal or change ballots when he is observed by<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>a large array of video-cameras, and by a close-up set of observers from all parts of<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>the political spectrum. (If you want this to have any legitimacy, don't take it upon yourself to<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>decide which parties are the "major parties". )<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>But the ditching, in a computer, of a vote whose only existence involves the states of transistor-switches<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>in that computer, or maybe magnetic polarities in a hard-drive--preventing that kind of count-fraud<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>would be considerably more difficult.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I repeat that I don't oppose machine-counting if it can be made as secure as handcounting can be.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br>Mike Ossipoff<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'> <br><br>.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>