Reply #55: I don't advocate eliminating computers from my life or even from elections.

[eomer]

I'm a software architect / developer so that wouldn't be practical for one thing.

What I advocate is that we not grant them any reliance. For example, I'm perfectly fine with using a computer for a task like tabulation but only when both the input and the output are fully and publicly disclosed. Put the raw data out on a public website and then put the tabulations that derive from those raw data on a public website and then you have my blessing for tabulating by computer all you would like. I can spot check or even check 100% of the tabulation if I so desire.

What I object to is the use of computers where I have to trust the result without any ability to double-check it. For example, paperless DREs like we have here in Miami-Dade County and like they have in Sarasota County.

I'm not satisfied with making it harder to hack the computers. Because with that approach I will always have to trust someone else's opinion about whether they have made it hard enough or not. If election workers want to use computers to lessen their workload then that is fine but they need to find ways to do so that don't take away my ability to observe the election meaningfully. Luckily there are ways to do just that. Paper ballots with optical scan work just fine (as long as there is an effective hand audit). Or if you just love GUI voting then use a touchscreen and have it print a ballot that is readable by both a human and a scanner. Put that ballot into the hands of the voter, who reviews it and deposits in a secure ballot box. Then use opscan for counting.

There is just no excuse for putting trust in computers for election purposes. It is not necessary, it is foolish, and no matter how secure you say you've made it there is no good reason I should believe you.