Re: MORE Questions from election officials

From: Ed Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 22:30:35 CDT

Hello All:

    What needs to be said to election officials is, "Don't throw away the
baby with the bath water." In other words, the reason for computers in
elections is to deal with:

1. Disabled Access
2. Foreign language access
3. Long ballots
4. 'Last minute' changes in ballots
5. Ease of counting

There isn't really any other good reason for electronic voting except that
previous punch card and lever systems haven't worked very well in addressing
the above issues. There are already tried and true methods of dealing with
election fraud in ballots. Therefore anything else that a computer does is
something that should be closely questioned and forced to be proven by those
that advocate it. The EVM is designed to work through a ballot based
system. There's nothing broken with how ballots are handled (when the laws
are observed) that needs to be fixed by using questionable DRE computers.
The OVC system relies on people's own abilities to see that the votes they
made are actually counted. There are useful built in safeguards within the
computer system to address known problems with ballots and the system is
designed to be audited by someone with a high school education. Every
things is out in the open and no one has anything to hide with this system.
The same cannot be said with DRE's.

Thanks, Ed Kennedy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Keller" <arthur@kellers.org>
To: <voting-project@lists.sonic.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: [voting-project] MORE Questions from election officials

> At 3:38 AM -0400 5/4/04, james_in_denver wrote:
> >So is there an easy way around the dilemma of either
>
> One.
>
> >you can cast your
> >vote, and review it later to make certain that the vote tabulation
> >system is working and be susceptible to coercion, or
>
> Two.
>
> >you can vote
> >anonymously and only be able to verify that your vote was tabulate, but
> >not how it was tabulated? Which would be more important? Seems pretty
> >situational to me?
>
> We obviously handle case two.
>
> Case one is handled because we support recounts of the paper ballot,
> and we reconcile the computer records against the paper ballots
> against the precinct voter counts. Doing the reconciliation in the
> precinct helps and allowing inspection of the process is also useful.
>
> Best regards,
> Arthur
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303-4507
> tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:13 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:15 CDT