tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1885549900454136918.post4595270964901126560..comments2023-08-11T08:06:28.810-07:00Comments on Slobber And Spittle (Archive): Rep. Holt Introduces Electronic Voting Reform BillCujo359http://www.blogger.com/profile/10385213658828021737noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1885549900454136918.post-87265487887899460732007-02-09T13:52:00.000-08:002007-02-09T13:52:00.000-08:00See my current post.See my current post.COLORADO BOBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16924573528754642186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1885549900454136918.post-84743734694575248542007-02-08T12:08:00.000-08:002007-02-08T12:08:00.000-08:00Yes, Colorado Bob, sometimes the cure can be worse...Yes, Colorado Bob, sometimes the cure can be worse than the disease. But there is also wisdom in thinking of problems being opportunities, as well. This is an interesting experiment in how to make our government more representative of us, and to make our elections process more reliable. If that turns out to be a failure, then we'll just have to chalk that one up as another bad idea. There is, however, no technical obstacle to this working out correctly. There are only obstacles of cost and our collective will as a society to work on making it right.Cujo359https://www.blogger.com/profile/10385213658828021737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1885549900454136918.post-32823218567097745612007-02-08T10:46:00.000-08:002007-02-08T10:46:00.000-08:00cujo .... Let us hope these things are fixed. Just...cujo .... Let us hope these things are fixed. Just think, all this because some old people in Fla. were confused by some lousey punch cards.<BR/><BR/>New left wing propaganda <BR/><A HREF="http://colorado-bob.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow"> This Bear Has Something to Say .... Version II</A>COLORADO BOBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16924573528754642186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1885549900454136918.post-29763880738142776542007-02-08T10:44:00.000-08:002007-02-08T10:44:00.000-08:00Mark E. Smith said... The requirement for manda...<I>Mark E. Smith said...<BR/><BR/> The requirement for mandatory audits is a fake. Even a requirement for 100% audits would be useless, no less 0.5%.</I><BR/><BR/>As a validation of a design, it's fine. As a validation of a vote in a particular election, 0.5% may not be enough. I'll go with what statisticians say on that. My opinion is that if you've looked at something like 1% of the vote and not found a problem, there probably weren't any that were due to machine error.<BR/><BR/>You and Chuck Herrin both seem to think that there was no vote fraud or electoral mishap that preceded the use of e-voting machines. That is simply not the case. Paper ballots are no more proof against fraud than electronic, the method of the fraud is simply different.<BR/><BR/>If you travel by air, your life is dependent on the proper operation of a closet full of computers. You depend, whether you know it or not, on computers to properly count your money and transfer it accurately. Computers can be made extremely reliable, to the point where they can rival or surpass any process based on human judgement. They can also be made secure. The real problem is that achieving this reliability and security is a serious and expensive process. Is it worth the effort? I think that's what the debate is about.<BR/><BR/>I'm somewhat agnostic on the whole paper vs. e-voting debate. It seems that the government is determined to try e-voting machines, and they have some good reasons. They make it possible for people with certain handicaps to participate in voting more easily. They also, if they are in working order, make vote counts much more quickly. Whether e-voting is better or worse is a debatable point, but I'm not inclined to take seriously anyone who makes analogies to child molesting and accuses an entire industry as "laughing off" problems related to their product.Cujo359https://www.blogger.com/profile/10385213658828021737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1885549900454136918.post-25753870205602744102007-02-08T05:17:00.000-08:002007-02-08T05:17:00.000-08:00The requirement for mandatory audits is a fake. Ev...The requirement for mandatory audits is a fake. Even a requirement for 100% audits would be useless, no less 0.5%. <BR/><BR/>In California's 50th Congressional District, the candidate was sworn in as a Member of Congress before all the votes were counted and before the election was certified. When citizens asked for a recount, Congress said that according to the Constitution, once a Member is sworn in, only Congress has the right to order a recount. <BR/><BR/>We know that voting machines are subject to what the elections industry laughs off as "glitches," little things like subtracting 16,000 votes in one district, losing 18,000 votes in another, or registering 4,000% more votes than there are registered voters in a third. <BR/><BR/>Trusting to audits is like leaving your kids with a known child molester for the evening, and saying that it is okay because you'll take them to the doctor to be examined tomorrow to make sure they weren't molested. No audit or examination can undo the damage once something as precious as your children or your democracy has been harmed. Responsible citizens vet baby-sitters and elections systems carefully to prevent damage to democracy, rather than relying on audits or examinations to ascertain afterwards, when it is too late and the harm cannot be undone, if there has been any damage.<BR/><BR/>What we need in elections is full citizen oversight, and this cannot be achieved with voting machines because no human can see what goes on inside a machine and machines cannot be audited in time to prevent irreparable harm.<BR/><BR/>Only paper ballots that are cast by voters with pen or pencil without the use of marking machines that could produce butterfly ballots, hanging chads, or discrepancies between what is printed and what is fed to the central calculator, can be fully trusted. And those ballots need to be hand-counted at the precincts on election night in full public view with videotaping allowed to prevent fraud.<BR/><BR/>Take a look at what computer security expert Chuck Herrin has to say before you make up your mind:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.chuckherrin.com/archive.htm" REL="nofollow">Chuck Herrin</A><BR/><BR/>Our votes determine the people who get to decide how our tax money is spent, so we have a right to demand at least as much security in our elections as we demand from our bank.Mark E. Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08462192382561896671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1885549900454136918.post-20603983048656085572007-02-07T21:42:00.000-08:002007-02-07T21:42:00.000-08:00Whoa!! The Holt bill, however, deceptively uses th...<I>Whoa!! The Holt bill, however, deceptively uses the term paper "ballot" yet the HOlt "ballots" will simply NEVER be counted in the first count on election night. Ever.<BR/></I><BR/>Nothing I wrote said otherwise. How states view election results is still largely their own concern. The Holt Bill just defines one of the methods of validating the result.<BR/><I><BR/>As section 327 states, if your state for example has an automatic machine recount provision that is triggered, you'll get a machine recount (such as just reprinting the DRE totals which is meaningless) and Holt II, by its own terms, does not require any audits of any kind whatsoever.<BR/></I><BR/>You seem to have skipped half of Section 327, namely the half in bold:<BR/><I><BR/>‘‘This subtitle does not apply to any election for which a recount is required automatically under State law because of the margin of victory between the two candidates receiving the largest number of votes in the election. <B>Nothing in the previous sentence may be construed to waive the application of any other provision of this Act to any election (including the ballot verification and audit capacity requirements of section 301(a)(2)).</B><BR/></I><BR/>In other words, a state is not obligated to use hand recounts if their laws already permit automated counts. They are <EM>not</EM> released from their other obligations to audit and so forth.<BR/><BR/>This, by the way, is what is known as a "strawman argument". The bill wasn't meant to do what you say it's meant to do.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>The analysis is continuing, but the point here is that Holt is not what it purports to be.<BR/></I><BR/>Actually, it is what it purports to be. "The analysis is continuing"? Give me a break. Next you'll be telling us it's fake because it doesn't stop voter intimidation.Cujo359https://www.blogger.com/profile/10385213658828021737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1885549900454136918.post-66746232047236491912007-02-07T17:54:00.000-08:002007-02-07T17:54:00.000-08:00Whoa!! The Holt bill, however, deceptively uses...Whoa!! The Holt bill, however, deceptively uses the term paper "ballot" yet the HOlt "ballots" will simply NEVER be counted in the first count on election night. Ever.<br /><br />And, on top of that, although the Holt bill II provides for a sign that will hang in bold letters in each polling place stating that the paper "ballot" is the ballot of record for "ALL RECOUNTS AND AUDITS" that is also UNTRUE. As section 327 states, if your state for example has an automatic machine recount provision that is triggered, you'll get a machine recount (such as just reprinting the DRE totals which is meaningless) and Holt II, by its own terms, does not require any audits of any kind whatsoever.<br /><br />The analysis is continuing, but the point here is that Holt is not what it purports to be. You'd think a ballot would be counted on the first count, Holt's "ballots" never are. You'd think a sign in every polling place would mean an audit in every polling place, but you'd be very wrong about that. <br /><br />Stay tuned for more revelations about how Holt is not what it appears to be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com