Re: A generic best practice document for NewMexicolegislators

From: Douglas W. Jones <jones_at_cs_dot_uiowa_dot_edu>
Date: Wed Dec 29 2004 - 09:01:12 CST

On Dec 28, 2004, at 6:40 PM, Robert Rapplean wrote:

> There is a clear way to resolve this. State that paper ballots hold
> superior sway over electronic ones, such that a displute will be
> resolved by the count of paper ballots - unless it can be demostrated
> that the paper ballots have in some way been tampered with. That
> covers all situations that you've described.

What demonstration is sufficient. Historians agree that corruption has
been present in many past elections where no legal proof of fraud was
found -- as evidenced by the rarity of conviction for election fraud.
So, would you demand physical evidence of tampering? Would you require
that witnesses come forward? Would you accept electronic evidence?

The answers to these questions determine how hard it will be for the
crook
to get his substitute paper ballots accepted. Other than performing a
successful substitution of the paper ballots, what else does the crook
need to do?

                Doug Jones
                jones@cs.uiowa.edu

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Fri Dec 31 23:17:21 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 31 2004 - 23:17:22 CST