Re: Alternate to Holt

From: Edmund R. Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Thu Feb 08 2007 - 10:29:48 CST

Hello All: So, the Holt bill has problems. I am given to understand that California's Senator Feinstein is also working on a bill in the Senate. People can provide input to her on her effort. Also, if both Holt's and Feinstein's bill are passing by their respective legislative, they will probably both end up in a conference committee where the differences will be ironed out. There's plenty of opportunity to clean up the Holt bill. Finally, let's not hyperventilate about Federal Standards on elections. If properly done, they could actually be a good thing. When you have 50 states with each county election official in each state (just for example, California has 50 counties) having differening voting standards, there are plenty of opportunties for adminstrative abuse. A standardized approach, while not perfect, could cut way down on this problem. Thanks, Edmund R. Kennedy, PE -- 10777 Bendigo Cove San Diego, CA 92126-2510 858-578-8842 Work for the common good. My profile: <http://geocities.com/ekennedyx/> I blog now and then at: <http://ekennedyx.blogspot.com/> ----- Original Message ---- From: Richard C. Johnson <dick@iwwco.com> To: nancy.tobi@gmail.com; Open Voting Consortium discussion list <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2007 8:16:13 AM Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Alternate to Holt Nancy, Your suggested replacement for the Holt bill is well thought out and well reasoned. I would suggest that you not accept the impossibility of testing and retesting voting software; properly done, it does not have to be impossibly expensive, nor does it have to take more than overnight. A set of national standard tests, an automated test harness, and either a reformed ITA or a national test lab could do this job once the costs of creating the lab were met. Untested software, last minute fixes, and failures in use are all too familiar to people in the software business. Open Source code, available to the community for test, can help spot and remove a number of problems. Regression testing, properly done, can help keep fixes from making problems worse. A well designed standard set of test routines will go far to exposing bugs (and some chicanery) otherwise visited on the voter. It is a matter of helping the odds, not of achieving the absolute. Yet, as I an others have pointed out, we can never prove something works. We can only prove it does not. The test goal is to subject the code to substantial risk of failure under simulated use. Such testing is needed and, as I claim above, it does not have to be impossibly time consuming and expensive. -- Dick Nancy Tobi <ntobi@democracyfornewhampshire.com> wrote: Here is an alternative to Holt - originally submitted as request for amendments, but now we understand Holt will never amend their bill, so take it as an alternative plan. It is a reasoned, practical, fiscally responsible plan. Please take note of our proposal to reorganize the EAC in the full document referenced at the URL below. Attached is a summary and the Request By Voters itself can be found here: http://www.wethepatriots.org/HAVA/requestbyvoters.pdf You can sign up on www.wethepatriots.org Nancy -- Nancy Tobi, Chair Democracy for New Hampshire DFNH Fair Elections Committee PO Box 717 | Concord, NH 03301 www.DemocracyForNewHampshire.com _______________________________________________ OVC-discuss mailing list OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss _______________________________________________ OVC-discuss mailing list OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Wed Feb 28 23:17:13 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 23:17:27 CST