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

From: Edmund R. Kennedy <ekennedyx_at_yahoo_dot_com>
Date: Mon May 23 2005 - 11:40:43 CDT

Hello Clint,

I was just looking over my letter and I realize that
I'm not being particularly clear. Everyone has been
arguing this issue on a qualatative basis. I think
you could be persuasive if you can muster up a
quantatative argument. HTH.

Thanks, Ed Kennedy
--- "Edmund R. Kennedy" <ekennedyx@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 09:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Edmund R. Kennedy" <ekennedyx@yahoo.com>
> Subject: RE: [OVC-discuss] "Unbelievers are allowed
> to depart" Now
> wholesale/retail fraud
> To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list
> <ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net>
>
> 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
>
> --- clintcurtis@clintcurtis.com 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 <cherlin@pacbell.net>
> > > Date: Mon, May 23, 2005 5:04 am
> > > To: ovc-discuss@listman.sonic.net
> > >
> > > 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
> > > http://cherlin.blogspot.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
>
> --
> 10777 Bendigo Cove
> San Diego, CA 92126-2510
>
> 858-578-8842
>
> Work for the common good.
> My profile: <http://geocities.com/ekennedyx/>
> I blog now and then at:
> <http://ekennedyx.blogspot.com/>
> _______________________________________________
> OVC discuss mailing lists
> Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
> arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
>

-- 
10777 Bendigo Cove
San Diego, CA 92126-2510
858-578-8842
Work for the common good.
My profile:  <http://geocities.com/ekennedyx/>
I blog now and then at:  <http://ekennedyx.blogspot.com/>
_______________________________________________
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 23:17:46 2005

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