Re: Dan Tokaji's remarks about ACR 242

From: Barbara Simons <simons_at_acm_dot_org>
Date: Thu Aug 12 2004 - 11:18:27 CDT

Tojaki has been consistently advocating for DREs. Given his ACLU
involvement, my guess is that he has had a key role in the ACLU's seriously
misguided pro-DRE stance.

Several folks have attempted to educate Tojaki. I wish you luck.

Regards,
Barbara

On 8/12/04 8:50, "David Mertz" <voting-project@gnosis.cx> wrote:

> "Alan Dechert" <alan@openvotingconsortium.org> wrote:
> |Dan is an ACLU lawyer--now Ohio State law professor--that has been pretty
> |influential in the voting modernization debate. He just posted some nice
> |remarks about the OVC on his blog.
>
> It's good to get a mention; but it doesn't look like Dan "gets it"
> overall. Scrolling down a few items in his blog, I found:
>
> In the 2000 presidential election, the DREs used in precinct had a
> 0.6% uncounted vote rate [in Franklin OH]. By contrast, the punch
> card system used by absentees had a 3.6% residual vote rate.
>
> The bottom line: If you want to increase the chance of your vote not
> being counted, then vote absentee.
>
> Someone who still talks about residual vote rate this way is missing 95%
> of the picture. Partially because "residual vote" conflates undervotes
> and overvotes, which are very different things. But much more so, of
> course, because the most significant errors/tampering in DREs won't show
> up in residual votes at all.
>
> It's extremely easy to imagine--or program--a DRE machine that would
> have a ZERO PERCENT residual vote. Just force it to be so during in the
> machine closing code!
>
> Or even without an end-of-day modification, a flawed DRE can record
> exactly one vote for each vote--it just happens to record a vote
> different from the one the voter wanted. E.g. no matter which onscreen
> button a voter presses, the DRE records exactly one vote for the
> Communist Presidential candidate. By Tokaji's criteria, the machine
> will have a very low (even 0%) residual vote rate, so every vote is
> "COUNTED"! It just happens that 99.5% of voters have their vote counted
> for a candidate they don't want!
>
> The kind of error I describe might happen even happen by simple
> programming but, not even necessarily because of hacking. Any C
> programmers here ever write a 'switch' and forget a 'break'? ^-|
>
> If you look farther, Tokaji promotes the same dangerous misunderstanding
> in many comments. E.g. take a look at his fawning quotes from the
> Georgia SoS' report.
>
> I wonder if Tokaji is educable.
>
> Yours, David...
>
> --
> ---[ to our friends at TLAs (spread the word) ]--------------------------
> Echelon North Korea Nazi cracking spy smuggle Columbia fissionable Stego
> White Water strategic Clinton Delta Force militia TEMPEST Libya Mossad
> ---[ Postmodern Enterprises <mertz@gnosis.cx> ]--------------------------
>
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue Aug 31 23:17:09 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 31 2004 - 23:17:22 CDT