Re: HR 811 (The Holt Bill) and The Commission: Alieninvaders in our democracy

From: Arthur Keller <voting_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Mon Jun 25 2007 - 15:57:24 CDT

Some advocate no use of any computerized election technology (I
assume Teresa Hommel is that camp). Some would allow computerized
election technology if it is fully disclosed (I assume Alan is in
this camp).

Some believe that HR 811 is an improvement. Some believe that it
doesn't go far enough or that it might preclude more effective

I am a fan of (hand or computer marked or printed) paper ballots that
are counted by hand or by computer. When they are counted by
computer, there must be sufficient hand-count audits to guarantee 99%
statistical confidence in the accuracy of the result.

I believe that those who advocate no computerization at all or
advocate 100% immediate disclosure may preclude making necessary
improvements that can be adopted for 2008.

To paraphrase Voltaire, the best is the enemy of the good.

Best regards,

At 3:55 PM -0500 6/25/07, Teresa Hommel wrote:
>A comment on Alan's idea that
>The principles of self governance require that election technology be open
>to public scrutiny.
>In my opinion, the principles of self governance require that all
>election procedures be appropriately
>observed, and all ballots and votes once cast be continuously
>observed until the election outcome
>is certfied. By "appropriately observed" I mean that voters must be
>able to observe the recording
>and casting of their own votes and ballot; election observers must
>be able to observe the storage,
>handling, and counting of the votes and ballots.
>The public cannot scrutinize computerized election technology,
>because they don't have
>the knowledge and skill to do so.
>Teresa Hommel
>Alan Dechert wrote:
>>>To give a little context, I'm a big fan of this piece penned
>>>by Matt Zimmerman of the EFF...
>>I am not a fan. We all realize that HR 811 would not mandate secret
>>software. However, it legitimizes the concept and carries the yellow pall
>>MSFT corruption. The NDA language was dictated by MSFT with a not-so-subtle
>>strings of MSFT money attached to action/in-action. It used to be, "what's
>>good for General Motors is good for America." The "What's good for MSFT is
>>good for America" canard is no better and perhaps worse. IMHO, the correct
>>response to HR 811 should be for the Justice Dept to re-start anti-trust
>>actions against MSFT and break up what has become a thoroughly corrupt
>>The principles of self governance require that election technology be open
>>to public scrutiny. We already have "disclosure" to a limited population of
>>people with a defined "need-to-know." We aren't interested in that type of
>>"NDA" is not a legitimate notion in the context of voting system technology.
>>Alan D.
>>OVC-discuss mailing list
>OVC-discuss mailing list

Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
OVC-discuss mailing list
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
Received on Sat Jun 30 23:17:03 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jun 30 2007 - 23:17:05 CDT