Re: Re: Open Voting Accouncements Message

From: David Webber \(XML\) <"David>
Date: Sat Jul 16 2005 - 20:21:31 CDT

Alan,

If someone would actually devote 0.001% of what they are spending on this
vendor crap - on funding an OSI project - we could get this done in less
than one year.

Getting that message thru is proving challenging. As you say one step at a
time. Right now we're getting the message thru that DRE equipment costs
$50+ per vote cast; that seems to be driving purchase of optical scan and
paper ballots.

Next we need to show why that - while cheaper - is only a partial
solution... they can save even more and get a still better solution....

DW

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Dechert" <dechert@gmail.com>
To: "David Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>; "Open Voting Consortium
discussion list" <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Re: Open Voting Accouncements Message

>
>
> > Alan,
> >
> > I'm not sure getting vendors to publish source code does much at all,
> > beyond
> > token PR.
> >
> > You have know idea if the executable was actually created from that
source
> > code, nor if the source code makes function calls to system routines
that
> > themselves change or modify either voting behaviour or executable code
> > itself.
> >
> I added, "and all information needed to reproduce these test results." I
> made it more specific than the Illinois legislation. I'm not sure if
putting
> in more specifics is needed or not. Maybe so. If you have another
sentence
> or so, let me know.
>
> > Anyway - I'm not saying the artifacts from testing and certification are
> > not
> > good - that is definately worthwhile.
> >
> Yes, I think this will be very worthwhile. We're in a long drawnout
> political battle. This is a step. SB 1438 was a step in CA -- it's a
piece
> of crap, really, but it does something to move us in the right direction.
> We were able to do it and we did. SB 370 will move us a bit further. SB
> 1438 says something like "the paper record copy is produced by the voter
> verified paper audit trail printing mechanism" but doesn't actually say
what
> the "paper record copy" is or what to do with it (it actually says the
paper
> record copy IS NOT A BALLOT). SB 370 says you have to use this paper
record
> copy thingy in manual counts -- routine audits and recounts. So, SB 370
> will be another step in the right direction, although it raises its own
> theoretical and practical issues.
>
> In short, this is a process.
>
> > I'd like at some point to press for use of public open source
components,
> > but this is catch22 - first of all we need a robust set of such to point
> > to
> > for implementers to use.
> >
> > Next year... ; -)
> >
> Open Voting is a long term project. I think we can get the whole thing
done
> in about 10 years.
>
> Alan D.
>
>

_______________________________________________
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 Sun Jul 31 23:17:17 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 15 2005 - 11:43:09 CDT