On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Kathy Dopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:17:49 -0700
> > From: "rob brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [EM] Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines
> > The "two strikes you are out" rule is not inherent to machi
Somehow we are not connecting, but I will try one more time.
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:34:56 -0600 Kathy Dopp wrote:
"fundamental design is flawed"? If so, obvious response is to redo the
design.
Hi David,
The only "design" that is *not* flawed (that I know of) is
voter-marked paper ballots be
here
is no software independent method to audit their output.
Again, I know of *no* PhD computer scientist who does not profit from
VVV who supports e-ballot voting machines.
Cheers,
Kathy
>
> -rob
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>
> "fundamental design is flawed"? If so, obvious response is to redo the
> design.
Hi David,
The only "design" that is *not* flawed (that I know of) is
voter-marked paper ballots because it provides voter-verifiED ballots.
However the optical scanning machines that count them today are very
fla
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:47:05 -0600 Kathy Dopp wrote:
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 01:16:29 -0400
From: Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [EM] Why We Shouldn't CountVotes with Machines
Responses concentrate on fact that present DREs and paper
ballots have problems, and do not conside
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Kathy Dopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As virtually all (all I know) independent computer scientists (who do
> not profit from certifying or working for VVV's - vulture voting
> vendors) agree, it is *not* possible to "fix" DREs because their
> fundamental desi
> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 01:16:29 -0400
> From: Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [EM] Why We Shouldn't CountVotes with Machines
> Responses concentrate on fact that present DREs and paper
> ballots have problems, and do not consider fixing the DREs.
As virtually all (all I kno
