On 2016-07-20 12:45 Brendan wrote: > To properly scrutinise it you'd also need to verify the operation of the/each > machine - what software was, in fact, loaded onto it, what did that software > do. Has the machine been compromised etc. Seems to me that vote stuffing > would be easier on a machine than a scrutinised ballot box.
Yes, an "audit" process should be part of the whole system. Auditing is currently performed by scrutineers, and it would be interesting to know whether the legislation includes any relevant clauses. But whatever the case, the AEC should not be allowed to quietly drop that function for the supposed benefits of machine processing. I think it's best to audit the results rather than the means, in this case the software. As a matter of interest, does anyone know what happens to the actual ballot papers after the results of an election are declared? And for how long can a result be challenged? David L. _______________________________________________ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
