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

Reply #23: I read what diva said. *You* re-read what Diva said and then try to think [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
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-17-08 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. I read what diva said. *You* re-read what Diva said and then try to think
The OP describes only a Subsystem of an entire Voting System, namely one which deals with VERIFYING the vote by 1) offering a line-item report of the vote for scrutiny by HUNDREDS of VOTERS' eyes to OPENLY verify the recording of the vote by the select few humans delegated to handle the PAPER BALLOTS, with a "side effect" of 2) affording a count of the vote that is indepdendent of the select few humans delegated to count the DETAILS on the PAPER BALLOTS


Diva's sentences:
"logistically, the machines are NEVER all examined prior to an election;"
"they are distributed weeks or days in advance of the election, they are subject to the same security failures and breakdowns as proprietary devices;"

The difference is a "standard PC" -- if defective -- can be easily and quickly replaced, likely in much less than an hour! They are cheap enough to have a backup onhand. Moreover, the OP is talking about a PAPER BALLOT environment!

READ THE TITLE: "A S..., Ver..., Op..., PAPER BALLOT ... ..."

"Paper Ballot" means a physical, analog record of the vote exists, and, thus, the absence of a working PC and/or software would not preclude conducting any standard HCPB procedure. The presence, though, of a working PC and software can *facilitate* and greatly enhance the integrity of any PAPER BALLOT election, at and beyond the precinct level. (See "advantages" in the OP)

The only "machine" involved is a standard PC, which -- in the CONTEXT OF ITS USE in the OP -- DOES NOT HAVE the "SAME" security risks as other "voting" "machines" (and should NOT be so relegated for purposes of estimation), since

  • It's not involved in any secret recording the vote (like a DRE) -- HUMANS openly read and record data from PAPER BALLOTS onto the spreadsheet & preserve the paper ballots
  • It's not involved in any secret counting of the vote (DRE, OpSc) -- HUMANS can do the count (but Excel can record, count and produce organized output for efficient, independent scrutiny of its input data)
  • It's not involved in any unverifiable counting of the vote (DRE, OS-if-the-"audit"-is-half-assed)
  • It produces practical physical output at the precinct and higher-up levels, for verification of the vote at every level by HUNDREDS of EYES (unlike DREs, OpSc, and HCPB-methods) ...AND I GUARANTEE MORE THAN 3% of VOTERS will be "AUDITING"
  • There is no code hiding secret manipulations of data (like on DREs or OpSc), since each analog-recorded data entry to spreadsheet is verified by humans (...and, in the context of spreadsheet usage, RE-VERIFIABLE by voters themselves, not only at the PRECINCT but also via INTERNET and also RE-RE-VERIFIABLE AFTER the vote's upload to Central tabulator on Election day itself).
  • If a standard PC "breaks down", it is easily, quickly replaceable at local stores, likewise "off-the-shelf" software like Excel. ANY and EVERYTHING INPUT and OUTPUT via WHATEVER PC & Software USED is OPEN to INSPECTION and CROSS-CHECKING at EVERY LEVEL by NUMEROUS PEOPLE, including voters themselves (who, also, become empowered to ADD UP THE COUNT themselves). Can always resort to standard HCPB methods (whatever those are)
  • The spreadsheet is primarily organizing output for verifying the vote ON THE DAY OF THE ELECTION. Since a COUNT and RE-COUNT of the Vote CAN ALWAYS proceed from the Paper Ballots themselves by hand tallies, it need NEVER be deemed an unwelcome situation that Software and the EYES OF HUNDREDS OF VOTERS can provide indepedendent reviews and counts of the data as a check against human error, whether in recording, counting or both.
  • What the human handling and hand tallying cannot produce is a neat line item report for EVERY G**DAMN voter to VERIFY that HIS OWN G**DAMN PAPER BALLOT VOTE had been properly recorded (by parties likely unknown to him, by whatever method of recording used).

    "sorry, it's just putting lipstick on a pig in my humble opinion to think that open source is going to be a viable alternative. Machines be damned!!"

    uh expected cliche, but a crude over-reach here...depends on the context and the details.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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