[IP] more on Another look at voting machines

[Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>]

> Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 15:21:57 -0400
> From: Dana Blankenhorn <danablankenhorn@mindspring.com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Another look at voting machines
> To: dave@farber.net
>
> Dave:
>
> This one gets me angry.
>
> What we have here is another straw man argument. Simson Garfinkel writes,
> "there is a rising chorus of geeks...who say that one machine should never
> be computerized: the voting machine."
>
> I can't put this too plainly. THAT IS A LIE.
>
> Those who criticize the Diebold machines (and other, similar systems) are
> not saying, don't computerize. They are saying, computerize in a way that
> can be audited.
>
> The present Diebold system cannot be audited. It has no physical artifact
> you can double-check. Thus, we don't know, and will never know, whether (for
> instance) the 2002 elections in the state of Georgia were stolen or not.
> Whatever you think of Democratic complaints in that area, the fact remains
> that Republicans CANNOT PROVE THEY WERE NOT STOLEN! Because they lack a
> physical artifact.
>
> It would be easy to obtain.
>
> A ribbon prints out two bar codes containing each vote. One copy stays in
> the machine. One is given to the voter, who can check it with a reader, and
> who then puts it into a box, as was done with punch cards. The other stays
> in the machine. Checking the bar codes in the machine gets a "machine
> recount." Opening the box and counting the bar codes there gives a "hand
> recount."
>
> And punch cards, hanging chads and all, are computer inputs.
>
> Straw man articles like this are unfair to all sides. They don't allow the
> advocates of the new voting machines to prove their thesis. They deny
> critics a fair hearing.
>
> All straw man arguments -- no matter where they come from, and no matter
> what the issue -- deserve the strongest possible condemnation. Those who
> make them need to be shamed into no longer making them, or, if they persist,
> driven out of public life altogether by public opprobrium and rejection.
>
> Dana Blankenhorn   danablankenhorn@mindspring.com
> Progressive Strategies   Business Strategy analyst
> http://www.progstrat.com http://www.corante.com/mooreslore
> Get A-Clue.Com Free   http://www.a-clue.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
> To: ip@v2.listbox.com <ip@v2.listbox.com>
> Date: Monday, September 08, 2003 3:07 PM
> Subject: [IP] Another look at voting machines

-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/