Re: Shamos Rebuttal, Draft 3

From: Teresa Hommel <tahommel_at_earthlink_dot_net>
Date: Thu May 05 2005 - 20:26:59 CDT

Well said, Kathy.

Teresa Hommel

Kathy Dopp wrote:

> Ron Crane wrote:
>
>> This draft incorporates comments by Arthur, David, and a well-known
>> OVC contributor who wishes to remain anonymous. It also includes some
>> revisions of my own. Revision bars are from draft 2, but exclude
>> purely textual changes like the placements of quotes and reference
>> marks. Please comment. My next draft will include full formal
>> citations for all the hyperlinks (talk about drudgery!)
>
>
>
> Ron,
>
> I'm sorry but there is too much in your Shamos rebuttal that I find
> over-stated or overly wordy or that I disagree with, and I do not have
> time to rewrite it. I began trying to rewrite a little (but still not
> to my satisfaction) and have attached the edited copy, but have to
> give up as I've got too much else to do. I promised to help begin
> writing our Liddle/Blumenthal rebuttal and it will take me a few days
> of studying before I can even begin and we have to get it ready by the
> AAPOR conference.
>
> I do not agree with your statements about voters being able to
> 'verify' that their votes were counted correctly. Voters, at best,
> can verify that their paper record of their vote is correct, not that
> their votes are counted correctly. The nature of secret ballots
> makes verifying that the votes are electronically counted correctly as
> voters vote impossible.
>
> I think that you put the burden too much on the voting machine vendor
> and do not emphasize nearly enough the need for election offcials to
> perform routine independent audits of the paper ballots to prevent
> vote embezzlement by insiders. IMO, decades of Not independently
> auditing electronic vote counts when 95%+ of our vote counts are
> electronic, has led to ubiquitous embezzlement of votes in numerous
> ways, and the only way to clean up American elections, is to not just
> implement voting systems that are independently auditable, but to
> actually require routine indendent audits of vote counts.
>
> The main problem with Shamos, IMO, is that he wants to have electronic
> voting systems that either provide no method of independently (from
> the voting machine vendor) auditing vote counts, or make it so
> difficult and expensive to independently audit vote counts, that no
> one will ever audit, and so that will continue to give free reign to
> insiders to embezzle votes - so the problem will continue ad
> infinitum. This point does not seem to be mentioned anywhere in your
> paper in any direct way.
>
> That said, I appreciate your efforts very much, and wish you well in
> it. It is a good goal.
>
> Best,
>
> Kathy
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>OVC discuss mailing lists
>Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
>

_______________________________________________
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 23:17:22 2005

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