Re: Brand new concept in audit trails

From: Jim March <jmarch_at_prodigy_dot_net>
Date: Wed May 04 2005 - 16:18:50 CDT

Ron Crane wrote:

> That's a big problem. It's one thing to reduce voting privacy for
> everyone, and something else to reduce privacy such that it effects
> certain parties or candidates more than others. I think this kills the
> carbon-copy scheme, though it still allows for the publication of
> precinct totals. The latter is very important, since it permits public
> verification of the global tally.
>
> -R

No, Ron, it does NOT "kill the carbon copy scheme" or it's variants
because the only thing the duplicate paper is doing is ensuring the
accuracy and hackproofing of a data type ALREADY declared public record
in all 50 states.

Let's be clear: in any state, any county, you can ask for and GET the
votes cast in any precinct you care to name. That's current law,
current procedure.

This proposed OVC trick of a publicly auditable paper copy would simply
ensure that this data is ACCURATE, not whether or not it exists.

Now, if you want to argue for the rights of minor-party-voters and get
these records sealed nationally, go for it. That's a separate issue. I
for one will fight you tooth and nail on that because there would be NO
LIMIT WHATSOEVER to vote-hacking by county elections officials.

Ron, you need to know more about how elections and election oversight works.

Jim
_______________________________________________
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 Tue May 31 23:17:18 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2005 - 23:17:52 CDT