Re: Focus on Rights

From: Ronald Crane <voting_at_lastland_dot_net>
Date: Sun Nov 11 2007 - 19:22:49 CST
Please don't post the same message more than once here. We read you the first time.

-R

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.
  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.
Giuseppe Cascella
----- Original Message -----
From: Nancy Tobi
To: Open Voting Consortium discussion list
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: [OVC-discuss] Focus on Rights

Arthur,

The idea of using technology to supplement - as a tool for checks and balances - is a reasonable one, and one that I think would be fairly universally embraced. The role of technology in elections must be clearly defined, and this is something that has never happened in the greater elections communities.

But this is something the citizen's movement for election integrity is asking now. We have learned the hard way the costs of blind acceptance of technology in elections, the costs of elevating technologists to the role of arbiters of our democracy, the costs of technologizing and complexifying our elections without question.

But if we stop a moment to just ask the question: "does technology belong in our elections, and if so, in what form?" then we have come a long way.

To answer this question, we have to return to the basic parameters and criteria for real democratic elections. This is simple and is summed up in two words: citizen oversight.

Not expert oversight. Not computer oversight. Just plain and simple citizen oversight.

If you find a way to use technology in elections that complies with this requirement for democratic election, you will have no complaints from anyone.

Best,

Nancy

On Nov 11, 2007 9:09 AM, Arthur Keller <voting@kellers.org> wrote:
At 8:03 AM -0500 11/30/07, Arlene Montemarano wrote:
>The protection of our  fragile rights should always the primary
>point of all that we do.

The question boils down to how we best safeguard those rights.  If
you had the choice of hand-counted paper ballots only vs. paper
ballots that were electronically scanned in the precinct when the
voter casts the ballot and then hand counted at the end of the day
(i.e., both electronic and hand counts), which would you prefer?
(Assume the electronic counts are not released until the hand counts
are made.)  Now suppose that the electronic scanner kept an image
copy of the ballot and that anyone could get a copy of all of those
images and hand or machine count those images to compare them to the
official vote count, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?  Do
you oppose the inclusion of electronic systems if they supplement
rather than replace hand counting?  Would you accept the idea that
the combination of electronic systems and hand counting can be more
secure and fraud or tamper resistent than hand counting alone?

Best regards,
Arthur

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
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   http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/


_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
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  http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/

_______________________________________________ OVC-discuss mailing list OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss 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 http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
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 http://gnosis.python-hosting.com/voting-project/
==================================================================
= 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