RE: GO for March Demo

From: <dr-jekyll_at_att_dot_net>
Date: Fri Mar 05 2004 - 18:48:04 CST

How about the candidates in Florida who lost by fewer than 134 votes in the election where the 134 votes were lost? The second place finisher was only 12 votes short.

People running for office usually thrive on publicity. Perhaps one of the "losers" who lost by fewer than 134 votes would endorse voter-verifiable paper trails.


I like this -- it communicates the flaws in the closed boxes, but it lets us
focus on the positive message. Yay!

- LP
-----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: [voting-project] GO for March Demo

Instead of constructing our own system to show the inaccuracy of voting,
why not use something that already exists and is available widely.

Excellent way to show the smoke and mirrors approach to what can happen
with paperless voting. Make up a packet of news articles and industry news
that shows the flaws and confusion that have resulted recently due to
improperly configured devices and lack of accountability/auditability.
Stay away from slanted or conspiracy type articles. Keep it factual.

Showcase the OVC system, its advantages and features, but give folks ample
evidence that there is an issue with the voting system unlike what is being
told by Voting officials and DRE manufacturers, the people who stand to
from these devices. But I wouldn't get too detailed since it may change
slightly in the future.

Showing people the cost savings basis and auditability of the OVC system
as compared to paperless systems gives people something to relate to..


On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Nathan L. Adams wrote:

> On Friday 05 March 2004 03:29 am, Jan Karrman wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Alan Dechert wrote:
> > > Originally, when I thought of doing the demo, I wanted to set up a DRE
> > > (or some mock up of one) and smash it with a sledge hammer on
> > > Arthur doesn't seem to think that's such a great idea. However, I
> > > we need some stunt other than just showing the system and explaining
> > > it works. There has to be some excuse for the TV cameras. If you
> > > some ideas on that, let's have them!
> >
> > There is a program on Swedish television where a guy evaluates various
> > products and services. Typically they are bad or dangerous products.
> > The program always ends with him throwing one of the checked items in
> > a large trash bin. A bit less drastic perhaps.
> >
> > /Jan
> I think throwing away a 'computer' is a bad idea. The general public might
> confuse the vendor cruft with our demo.
> I propose that we demonstrate how easy it is to steal a vote with a
> computerized system that has no voter-verified paper trail. It shouldn't
> too hard to fork the demo software and create a version that *appears* to
> correctly count the vote, but obviously lies when the tallies are
> Example:
> Have the reporters take turns voting for either 'Cats' or 'Dogs'. We could
> even have the machine display a running tally at the start that shows a 0
> vote count for each choice (just like the Diebold machines). Challenge the
> reporters to keep their own running tally. When it is time to show the
> vote, it should be close to reality but the Dogs should always win.
> It would be good to distill all of Diebold's confidence building tricks
out of
> Avi's recent account, and emulate them in this 'bogus-demo':
> Nathan

= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Wed Mar 31 23:17:02 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 31 2004 - 23:17:12 CST