RE: "Unbelievers are allowed to depart" Now wholesale/retail fraud

From: Edmund R. Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Mon May 23 2005 - 11:27:44 CDT

Hello Clint:

I'm not completely up to speed on this discussion but
it sounds like your are stuck on the issue of what
we've come to call wholesale versus retail fraud.
Retail fraud has to do with a voter by voter
subversion along the lines of voter coercion and vote
buying, while wholesale fraud has more to do with
ballot box tampering kind of along the lines you are
suggesting. Is this correct? I know that a number of
us went multiple rounds on which one was more
important. After a great deal of weeping, wailing,
tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth; the light
dawned on us that both issues are equally important.

Perhaps we need to do a little more formal risk
analysis on this issue? I know I'd like to see you
put up some sort of cost/benefit analysis of voter
receipts. Intuitively and experientially we generally
believe voter receipts are a problem. However, we're
all reasonable people here and I consider the issue
open, -- to a very persuasive analysis. So far, I
haven't seen the actual benefits to the voter or even
how a voter would be able to audit their vote through
the entire process. The paper ballot generated seems
like an adequate system without the downside. So, I
look forward to a risk or cost/benefit analysis from
you for voter receipts.

As always, I'm only speaking for myself here but I
understand this an issue that fate has thrust upon you
so I'm personally willing to give you the type of
respectful hearing that I'd like to receive.

Thanks, Ed Kennedy

--- wrote:
> Kind of testy. Have you considered that possibly
> others may have
> opinions that you will not be able to unilaterally
> dictate. If you are
> the final word on this matter then I will depart. If
> you are not then
> expect my resistance to anything which gives vote
> fraud comfort.
> Clint
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [OVC-discuss] "Unbelievers are allowed to
> depart"
> > From: Edward Cherlin <>
> > Date: Mon, May 23, 2005 5:04 am
> > To:
> >
> > There have been a number of people on this list
> (and several
> > others that I have received) who are remarkably
> resistant to
> > facts. For example, it does no good to refuse to
> recognize that
> > the law is as it is, however much we may wish it
> to be
> > different. We can argue that the law *should* be
> different if we
> > are also willing to discuss whether we are likely
> to be able to
> > convince people to change it. However, insisting
> that settled
> > principles of law and human rights are invalid
> gets us worse
> > than nowhere.
> >
> > One of the leading principles of democracy is the
> secret ballot.
> > If you don't believe in the secret ballot, you
> have no
> > credibility in voting matters. This is not our
> private opinion
> > on this list. It is established fact nationwide
> and beyond. If
> > you would rather argue for a non-secret ballot
> than work on
> > securing the secret ballot, we are not the people
> you want to
> > work with.
> >
> > We can argue for laws permitting, encouraging, and
> even requiring
> > Free/Open Source Software and paper ballots with
> an electronic
> > audit trail. We cannot argue for publishing
> ballots in a way
> > that allows anybody to determine routinely whose
> ballots they
> > are. This is a thorny issue, because publication
> of all ballots
> > does allow some voters to be identified, while not
> publishing
> > them prevents independent analysis and detection
> of fraud.
> > Denying either of these plain facts is not
> helpful.
> >
> > What we need is more facts. Perhaps someday we can
> secure
> > ballots, using open software and a robust audit
> capability, to
> > the point where the results are not routinely
> called into
> > question, without having to provide for routine
> outside
> > analysis. Perhaps this is not that day, and we
> have to take some
> > risks with privacy in order to secure
> accountability. And then,
> > perhaps, we will have to choose where we come down
> along that
> > axis, and explain to others why that is the best
> choice in the
> > circumstances. But we certainly cannot just
> dismiss either
> > privacy or accountability.
> >
> > I have faced this issue many times in my work on
> spam. There are
> > people who believe that spam should be legal, and
> should be
> > fought by technical rather than legal means. They
> can believe
> > what they like, but we didn't let them come in and
> interfere in
> > the workings of a group devoted to creating laws
> against spam
> > and getting them passed.
> >
> > If any of you think the rest of us at OVC (or any
> of us in
> > particular) are blockheads for not seeing the
> brilliance and
> > inevitability of your ideas, you have your reward.
> Please don't
> > try to foist it on the rest of us.
> > --
> > Edward Cherlin
> > Generalist & activist--Linux, languages, literacy
> and more
> > "A knot! Oh, do let me help to undo it!"
> > --Alice in Wonderland
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OVC discuss mailing lists
> > Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to

10777 Bendigo Cove
San Diego, CA 92126-2510
Work for the common good.
My profile:  <>
I blog now and then at:  <>
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 23:17:46 2005

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