On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:37:32 -0600 Kathy Dopp wrote:
4. Re: Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines (Dave Ketchum)
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:14:34 +0200 Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Dave Ketchum wrote:
I DO NOT like printout-based machines. To start some thinking, how about:
All machines have identical valid code,
Some have video cameras recording the ballot as the voter
submits it.
Voters choose which machines to vote on.
Audit that tapes prove 100% correctness of those machines taped
- BETTER be.
Just a few objections come to mind for that "solution" David:
First, this is not intended to be used in a zillion precincts -
just to validate the programs.
But part of the requirement on the program installation is that
it be impractical to alter it undetectably.
1. potentially violates voter privacy
That is the reason for letting voters CHOOSE whether to
volunteer for this.
2. video can be digitally altered, segments deleted (is more volatile
than paper ballots)
So there needs to be extra effort to avoid such.
3. another expensive toy (video cameras) that would have to be kept
running during elections, & maintained between elections, tested,
certified, etc.
Sounds like overkill. What more is needed than cameras that can
be borrowed for use as needed?
4. auditing video tapes would be much slower (more administratively
burdensome) than auditing paper ballots
"Auditing" is not clear to me - must read all the ballots off
the tape - part of deciding how many voting machines to do this on.
5. selecting the machines to be videotaped prior to the election tells
any inside fraudsters which machines can be undetectably tampered with
or have their votes altered during or after the election (valid
auditing requires only selecting the random audit units AFTER all the
auditable vote counts have been publicly posted after the polls close
(as in any field, the data must be committed prior to auditing it)
Then I am not proposing auditing as such.
The programs used need to make fraud difficult, and undetectable
fraud VERY difficult, wherever used, whether or not a particular
machine is taped.
Again, my purpose is validating a program, rather than a particular
election.
A response giving more details of why election integrity advocates
oppose such video systems is included in this post that I wrote upon
request of the Election Defense Alliance:
http://electionarchive.org/ucvInfo/US/legislation/S3212BennettFeinsteinBill2008.pdf
Cheers,
Kathy
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
