Heads up to diagram posted in another thread - is this valuable?

[cyberpj]

See: "America isn't America! apnews isn't news" post. There is a diagram about voting machines that has nothing to do with that particular thread. I wondered if the diagram was worth anything to voting fraud people?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1646774&mesg_id=1646830&page=

[skids]

1. sacxtra is just "marketing" his/her work.

It's a bit of a netiquette breach to spam it around, but some people just haven't caught on to that.

The diagram has some problems, and I've offered my comments on how to improve it when he/she appended it to my "MASSIVE CONSPIRACY" thread.

At this early point I see no reason to suspect his/her motives, though a little slap on the wrist for thread spamming is certainly in order.

:spank:

(EDIT: PC degenderization of pronouns)

[Bill Bored]

2. I tend to agree.

In general the principle is correct. The system isn't transparent and it can be hacked at various levels. It could be made less-hackable, much less perhaps, but it still won't be transparent.

So our argument can go two or three ways:

1. We MUST HAVE transparency, even for non-technical voters, which I suspect not only includes the mentally challenged and the non-computer literate, but also the vast majority of election lawyers! This we can call the Land Shark approach.

2. We MUST make the system hack-proof beyond any reasonable doubt. There are ways to do this, but it wouldn't be transparent. Call this the Geek approach. None of the bills currently in Congress comes close enough to this standard in my opinion. And again, there would be no real transparency, except to the Geeks themselves.

3. Fuck the system and just audit enough voter-verified paper ballots (or as many as we can afford to audit) to rule out any counting fraud with statistical certainty. This is kind of a semi-transparent approach. The statisticians would understand it, and so would many voters, at least in principle. Call this the Sledge Hammer approach. The issue is who would pay for it, regulate it, etc? Currently this power is left up to BOEs including the EAC at the federal level. But we might argue they can't be trusted and so it should be put into law.

What do y'all think of this little synopsis?

I think we should start another thread about it, but that's just me.

[Wilms]

3. I'd be down for a tabulator/software thread.

But I'm sorry to think it'll get spammed by a well intentioned, but distracting poster.