Re: Nevada Voters Forum

From: Edward Cherlin <edward_dot_cherlin_at_etssg_dot_com>
Date: Wed Dec 10 2003 - 09:52:35 CST

On Friday 05 December 2003 01:49 pm, Alan Dechert wrote:
> Lou,
[Lou wrote]
> > There may be some ways that OVC could help the process in
> > the shorter term by coming up with ways that existing
> > vendors could improve their systems. .....

They could adopt our goals, and they could use anything they like
from our published design. We don't have to pursue them. We have
to do our job right.

All experience has shown that the current voting machine vendors
have no interest in quality and reliability, as long as they can
sell their products. They follow the motto, "Close enough for
government work." The only factors that weigh with them are the
law (unless they can figure out a way around it) and the
competition (definitely).

The only help we can give vendors that would result in them
improving their systems is to change the rules so that they are
required to do it. In short, concentrating on our project is the
shortest path to what you want. Talking to the vendors leads
around Robin Hood's barn.

> I have to say I disagree with this part. This is, in essence,
> what the Caltech/MIT project has become. Ironically, the OVC
> is carrying the banner for what the Caltech/MIT project
> originally stood for. They are working with vendors and
> jurisdictions to improve things. The OVC is growing a new
> crop of vendors. These goals/objectives are pretty much
> mutually exclusive.
> > For instance.
> >
> > Advocate a voter verified paper trail

> Alan D.

Edward Cherlin, Simputer Evangelist
Encore Technologies (S) Pte. Ltd.
Computers for all of us,
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
Received on Wed Dec 31 23:17:07 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 31 2003 - 23:17:18 CST