Re: Shamos Rebuttal, Draft 2

From: Arthur Keller <voting_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Thu May 05 2005 - 00:43:17 CDT

At 9:11 PM -0700 5/4/05, Ron Crane wrote:
>>14. End of Section 5.
>>Check out for a good rebuttal.
>>Also the member opinion poll at
>>86.38% strongly agreed with:
>>"ACM's proposed policy position concludes that due to the risks and
>>vulnerabilities inherent in many voting systems in use today -
>>particularly computer-based electronic voting systems - it is
>>important that physical records (e.g., paper) are maintained to
>>ensure that a vote has been cast accurately and that a meaningful
>>physical record of a vote exists."
>>I'd recommend getting an update on the number of signers at
>>Verified by category. They no longer have the numbers
>>(or lists) on their website.
>I don't want to get into a war of numbers here. It's sufficient to
>point out his sophistic math and the fact that he provides no
>citations to support his proposition about "the other 9,999 out of

I disagree. You have direct evidence that he's wrong in my cite.

>>Footnote 54, Also cite
>That's not so easy to interpret, and, because of the Electoral
>College's amplifying effects, is actually not a good example of the
>phenomenon I'm trying to illustrate.

How about instead?

Best regards,

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 lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
= 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 23:17:20 2005

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