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 #34: I'll tell you who's really in deep denial: [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
Bill Bored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-09 03:36 AM
Response to Reply #30
34. I'll tell you who's really in deep denial:
Edited on Thu Feb-26-09 04:09 AM by Bill Bored
those who continue to advocate for paper ballots, counted by computers, with NO idea how to go about verifying the election outcomes.

This has been going on for years, and you know it. I realize it's the best they can do in 49 other states, but NY should not be made to pay the price for butterfly ballots and sub-standard punch cards in Florida 2000, whether they were deliberately introduced into that voting system or not. (Coincidentally, Sequoia did dump their AVM lever holdings shortly after the FL 2000 meltdown, but way before HAVA and the deliberate misreading of HAVA that would "ban" the levers. Interesting when you consider that levers had nothing to do with FL 2000. So what did Sequoia know and when did they know it?)

If levers fail so often, how do you explain NY's undervote rate, which is comparable to that of other states running software -- (except for the fact that a software-based undervote rate can't be verified)? When lever machines lose votes, you get undervotes. So where are they? Moved over the border to Syria?

I believe there may be other ways to prove that this isn't happening, such as counting discrepancies between the public and protective counters, which are the MOST frequently used ones in the machine (every time a ballot is cast). But no one is seriously interested in considering this because it doesn't fit their paradigm of counting paper with computers.

And frankly, I wish Doug Jones would 86 that 99 story unless he or Saltman can give a bit more detail than "noticeably different from the number of 98's or 100's." And the levers are NOT that hard to test. Software is hard to test!

As far as transparency, if levers are not, scanners and DREs are CERTAINLY NOT.

As far as tampering, it's the procedures that prevent it. But I doubt there are any that can do so very effectively where software is concerned. At least none that are well-understood by non-IT-security geeks, and they aren't the folks running most of our elections, are they?

Suffice it to say that election officials and most attorneys who are trying to run this stuff are pretty damn clueless about how any of it works, despite all the grant money that's supposed to be going to educate them! After all that, I still only trust them to know how to run a lever election. That's about it.

But you've already agreed that "it's at least perfectly plausible to say that lever machines are the best we've got."
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