Re: Focus on Rights

From: Ronald Crane <voting_at_lastland_dot_net>
Date: Sun Nov 11 2007 - 19:20:44 CST

compodinamic wrote:
> We accept that in the manual counting can be mistakes, because we assigning
> it to one or plus person.
> The machine can not be wrong, or it works or it doesn't work.
So you're saying that intermittent faults in -- or an intermittent
frauds committed using -- machines do not exist? If so, your assertion
runs counter to the entire history of computational devices.
> We need to reassure the voters that the machine works even if there is a
> failure or if there is an attempt to alter the vote.
> In practice, the voter must feel that the vote that expressed " is its vote
> and not the vote of the machine."
> My search technology to achieve this result.
The issue is not really what the voter "feels", but what the procedure
permits the voter to supervise. A system that helps voters "feel" good
can still cheat them. Many people "felt" very good about DREs -- until
activists pointed out the many ways in which they can fail or be used to
commit fraud.

A good voting system permits a public having ordinary intelligence and
minimal training to effectively supervise the entire voting procedure. A
bad voting system requires substantial expert supervision. Citizens
running and supervising their own elections is democracy in action.
Citizens delegating the running and supervision of their elections to
machinery and to experts is tyranny in utero.

OVC-discuss mailing list
By sending email to the OVC-discuss list, you thereby agree to release the content of your posts to the Public Domain--with the exception of copyrighted material quoted according to fair use, including publicly archiving at
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Fri Nov 30 23:17:14 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 23:17:31 CST