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 #5: In either case [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
Kelvin Mace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-20-10 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. In either case
yours or mine, we have a problem.

If you enter a candidate's name in GEMS for example, at first the ballot text will automatically match the database record of the name. But after that, the ballot text can be edited with no corresponding change to the database record of the candidate's name. So you could easily have candidate "Whitey" in the database and "Whitney" on the ballot (or vice versa) at the same time (or Bush in the database and Kerry on the ballot for that matter).

Such a change would persist as long as the machine had power, if I am understanding your explanation. We still have two tables with candidate info, even if one is stored in memory and one on disk.

Now, this applies to optical scanners as well as DREs, since they are both programmed by GEMS. This is why I don't see what's so attractive about ballot scanners. They are as hackable as touchscreens and rarely does anyone check scanner tallies by counting enough of the paper ballots to prove that this sort of thing, or worse, didn't happen. But I digress.
Well any system of vote counting can't operate without audit checks.

In NC random audits are required by law at the end of the election to check electronic count versus a hand count. If a discrepancy found and verified, this triggers more check of other machines. When the electronic and paper count disagree, the paper count is assumed accurate, and is the official count, unless it can be determined that the paper ballots were tampered with.

No system is perfect, but with proper safeguards, OpScan is the best solution we have.

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