Mike, your questions become more and more incomprehensible.
You said "I repeat that I don't oppose machine-counting if it can be made as secure as handcounting can be." Wherefrom and how did the word "secure" enter this discussion? Whatever handcounting is it isn't "secure." Seriously, you think hand-counting whatever you get from the "official ballot boxes" is a "verification" of the vote-counting? It's not, as we repeatedly point out. You argue over and over that the only "verifiable" counts have to be based upon INSECURE notions of paper ballots in boxes. Suppose we change every ballot-collection-method in existence to paper ballots suitable for hand-counting. Show how you can PROVE to me that the paper ballots you hand-counted included mine. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 5:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [EM] Paul: Count issues. Paul: You said: You argue we should only use paper ballots to make your hand-counting easier, to which I would say we should only use electronic ballots that won't end up in a landfill or be changed by the primary hand-counter before you get to "verify" them. [endquote] How is the primary handcounter going to steal or change ballots when he is observed by a large array of video-cameras, and by a close-up set of observers from all parts of the political spectrum. (If you want this to have any legitimacy, don't take it upon yourself to decide which parties are the "major parties". ) But the ditching, in a computer, of a vote whose only existence involves the states of transistor-switches in that computer, or maybe magnetic polarities in a hard-drive--preventing that kind of count-fraud would be considerably more difficult. I repeat that I don't oppose machine-counting if it can be made as secure as handcounting can be. Mike Ossipoff .
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
