You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #11: That doesn't address the issue [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-20-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. That doesn't address the issue
You can have paper ballots counted by a scanner without sacrificing accuracy or integrity, and with no substantial lack of speed. Speed isn't even a desirable trait in an election system. The desirable traits in an election system are accuracy and integrity. With either one missing you don't have an election, you have a charade.

The problem we are discussing here is the electronic casting of votes for electronic counting. No scanning involved if there's no paper trail. Problem is you have to just trust what the database says, with no other record to confirm it. If one can neither verify the count independently (as you could with scanned ballots, by using another scanner or by hand-counting) nor be assured of what code is actually running on the machines, then the election itself can be wholly manipulated by anyone with access to these machines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
  -The strange case of the second database table Kelvin Mace  Oct-19-10 06:36 PM   #0 
  - The problem here  notesdev   Oct-19-10 07:28 PM   #1 
  - Well, I am not trying to establish  Kelvin Mace   Oct-19-10 08:51 PM   #2 
     - All we can establish with the facts we have  notesdev   Oct-20-10 12:48 PM   #6 
        - You are preaching to the choir  Kelvin Mace   Oct-20-10 01:28 PM   #7 
           - The evidence is in the method chosen  notesdev   Oct-20-10 02:09 PM   #8 
              - Uh. Speed.  Wilms   Oct-20-10 05:08 PM   #10 
              - That doesn't address the issue  notesdev   Oct-20-10 05:48 PM   #11 
              - You can have paper ballots counted by a scanner without sacrificing integrity? How? nt  Bill Bored   Oct-20-10 07:45 PM   #15 
              - I did address the issue you brought up.  Wilms   Oct-20-10 08:24 PM   #18 
                 - Some people  Kelvin Mace   Oct-21-10 12:21 PM   #23 
                    - Now that's a fair criticism of Election Officials.  Wilms   Oct-21-10 12:42 PM   #25 
              - Agreed  Kelvin Mace   Oct-20-10 07:32 PM   #14 
              - Sorry, I must disagree  Kelvin Mace   Oct-20-10 07:30 PM   #13 
                 - Cabal?  Bill Bored   Oct-20-10 08:00 PM   #16 
                    - There are a lot of problems  Kelvin Mace   Oct-21-10 12:57 PM   #26 
                       - How about this example (consider it a "hybrid case"):  Bill Bored   Oct-22-10 02:46 AM   #30 
                          - What can I say?  Kelvin Mace   Oct-22-10 08:17 AM   #31 
                             - I don't think the system was purchased with those illegal features...  Bill Bored   Oct-23-10 01:16 AM   #34 
  - How about: ballot text is editable; database records are not?  Bill Bored   Oct-19-10 11:41 PM   #3 
  - You and those prickly details, again?  Wilms   Oct-20-10 12:03 AM   #4 
  - In either case  Kelvin Mace   Oct-20-10 07:58 AM   #5 
     - re: "...with proper safeguards, OpScan is the best solution..."  Wilms   Oct-20-10 05:00 PM   #9 
     - Certainly...  Kelvin Mace   Oct-20-10 07:14 PM   #12 
        - Mostly  Wilms   Oct-20-10 08:32 PM   #19 
        - Well  Kelvin Mace   Oct-21-10 12:03 PM   #22 
           - We'll go 'round in circles.  Wilms   Oct-21-10 12:38 PM   #24 
              - I'm kind of not understanding what you are saying here  Kelvin Mace   Oct-21-10 01:04 PM   #27 
                 - He's saying that knowing the source code doesn't protect the vote.  Bill Bored   Oct-22-10 02:19 AM   #28 
                    - That's pretty much my point. Thanks Bill.  Wilms   Oct-25-10 12:23 PM   #36 
        - Not one state does #3, including yours, although NC has made some progress. nt  Bill Bored   Oct-20-10 08:42 PM   #20 
           - Hmmm, I said...  Kelvin Mace   Oct-21-10 11:51 AM   #21 
              - You missed that only ONE contest is audited, and that the expansion of the audit did NOT happen...  Bill Bored   Oct-22-10 02:25 AM   #29 
                 - Ah, now I understand  Kelvin Mace   Oct-22-10 10:57 AM   #32 
                    - AGREED! (And of course Joyce rocks!) nt  Bill Bored   Oct-23-10 01:18 AM   #35 
     - Any system that allows vote switching is NOT the best solution we have.  Bill Bored   Oct-20-10 08:22 PM   #17 
  - you don't give much detail about why HCPB is so impossible.  diva77   Oct-22-10 02:31 PM   #33 
  - Fraud AND Greed  Catbird   Oct-25-10 01:38 PM   #37 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC