Re: Reflections on the election and implications for the OVC

From: Robert Rapplean <robert_at_rapplean_dot_net>
Date: Fri Nov 05 2004 - 14:36:53 CST

I'm going to second this one. Having a playstation as your voting
machine would undoubtably cause unease among those whose jobs depend on
selecting a relaible solution. It's like the old "nobody every lost
their job for buying IBM" adage. You can't go wrong buying Diebold,
even if they fail completely, but you can get into serious trouble for
purchasing Sony brand voting machines regardless of how reliable they are.

Scott Brown wrote:

>If I can jump in here, I'd like to cast my vote against the idea of
>using gaming technology for the EVM system. From a purely technical
>perspective, I think it's a fine idea. However, even besides the
>licensing issues Laird raises, I'm not so sure teaming up with MS,
>Sony and Nintendo would be great PR.
>
>On the contrary, I'm afraid it would color other people's view of the
>OVC as not being serious about solving the problem at hand. As a
>grassroots movement, OVC will encounter (and I'm sure already has
>encountered) many political obstacles. At some point - hopefully in
>the not-too-distant future - OVC will have to sell (not literally) our
>ideas to the mainstream public. I fear that being based on gaming
>technology would increase the risk of being marginalized by our target
>audience.
>
>Let me be clear that I don't think there's anything wrong with the
>technology, but from a purely political perspective, I don't think
>it's a good idea.
>
>Furthermore, I would suggest that keeping costs to an absolute
>minimum, while a laudable goal, should be far from the top of the
>list. In convincing others of the importance of creating secure,
>auditable voting machines, it's possible that having a shockingly
>inexpensive solution could be a hindrance. Some people just won't
>believe that a solution that costs $250 per installation cannot
>possibly be as secure and effective as another system that costs 10
>times as much - regardless of the truth. I am NOT suggesting that the
>OVC deliberately engineer a more expensive system, simply that final
>production costs shouldn't necessarily be a driving factor.
>
>-- Scott
>
>On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:15:08 -0500, laird popkin <lairdp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>- Of the console vendors, only MS is losing money on their consoles.
>>So for the Xbox you're right -- MS probably wouldn't want you to use
>>Xboxes for voting stations. However (1) Sony and Nintendo make a
>>profit selling their consoles so they might be perfectly happy, (2)
>>even if they don't like it, we don't need their permission to buy and
>>use their consoles, and (3) a console used to run an election every
>>two years can be used to play games the rest of the time, presumably
>>selling more games. :-)
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue Nov 30 23:17:11 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 30 2004 - 23:17:43 CST