From: Alan Dechert <alan_at_openvotingconsortium_dot_org>
Date: Fri Nov 12 2004 - 14:11:52 CST

> Alan I hate it.
Thanks, Charlie. Specific wording would be appreciated.

Alan D.

> The message for me this election was
> 1) it was close
> 2) there were known errors
> 3) there were certainly unknown too
> 4) But we cant tell the difference between an error and a surprising
> 5) there are always going to be errors, and close outcomes
> 6) the goal shoul dnot be to make an error-proof machine, but rather a
robust system
> 7) this requires making errors detacable
> 8) the requires making error differentiable for odd statistics
> 9) this require being able to correct errors when they occur
> 10) voter confidence requires tranaparentcy in all of the above.
> Frankly it makes no difference to me that there were errors in this
election or if we averted a disaster just with a large margin. The looming
potential of fraud and errors is problem enough.
> I also like Avi Ruben's take that the press set up this hypothetical
train wreck by hyping the potential for errors as a high likelihood of a
disaster. Now the story is that this was another millenium bug overhyped by
the verified voting henny pennies. I think you should address this by
stressing the potential for problems remains unchanged. Microsoft has had
secuirty holes lurking in designs that only come to light years later.
= 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 23:17:29 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 30 2004 - 23:17:44 CST