I don't know...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| mvermeer Mar 16, 2005 6:20 AM EDT |
...of course open source voting software is better than closed source, but it closes down only one opportunity for abuse. The statement ""the future of open government is at stake" is not an over-dramatization. I would even say: the future of democracy is at stake. As my old friend Joseph Djugashvili used to say: it's not who votes that counts, but who counts the vote. Democracy is for citizens, not machines or companies or nerds, and that includes vote counting. Working on open source voting software on the one hand is a good thing, on the other, legitimizes a bad practice. |
| PaulFerris Mar 17, 2005 2:57 AM EDT |
MV: I live within 10 miles of Canton Ohio. Local press had some rather interesting quotes from one of the executives of a local company that just so happens to make voting machines, which in the recent election, and unlike most of the other machines this company makes, for some strange reason, did not have any kind of paper trail... -- oh, do you know of what you speak... |
| mvermeer Mar 17, 2005 4:41 AM EDT |
Paul: A paper trail only causes trouble. It's so much easier without it: don't apologize, don't explain... And get rid of exit polls. Now. They're for countries like Ukraine; an honest country like America doesn't need them... |
| dinotrac Mar 17, 2005 10:00 AM EDT |
Nobody needs exit polls except for people trying to scam elections. You could see it in the last US election. Early results were leaked out and they tended to favor John Kerry heavily. However, the folks who actually ran the polls know that voting patterns through the day are not random and did not officially release those earlyh results. |
| mvermeer Mar 17, 2005 11:01 PM EDT |
> Nobody needs exit polls except for people trying to scam elections. Then you seem to agree with Jimmy Carter... I didn't quite figure you that naive, Dean :-) http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820.htm |
| dinotrac Mar 18, 2005 12:27 AM EDT |
>Then you seem to agree with Jimmy Carter If a stopped clock can be right twice a day, Jimmy Carter can be right once in his life. ;0) |
| mvermeer Mar 18, 2005 8:54 AM EDT |
> ...Jimmy Carter can be right once in his life. Ah, you mean you agree that the Venezuelan recall vote count was beyond reproach? You don't stop surprising me Dean ;-) |
| dinotrac Mar 18, 2005 9:15 AM EDT |
Actually, I was referring to his work with Habitat for Humanity, though he seems also to have made a good choice in marrying Rosalynn. ;0) |
| mvermeer Mar 20, 2005 12:27 AM EDT |
> Actually, I was referring to his work with Habitat for Humanity,
> though he seems also to have made a good choice in marrying Rosalynn.
> ;0) /me agrees on both counts Now I know you again Dean. Always ready to debate beside the issue :-) |
| bluescreen Mar 21, 2005 7:47 AM EDT |
> Working on open source voting software on the one hand is a good thing, on the other, legitimizes a bad practice. Obviously an important point of contention. However, in the U.S. states are being given quite a bit of money through the Help America Vote Act specifically to implement electronic voting systems. This is being done as much in the name of accessibility for the disabled as it is to "streamline" the voting process. Additionally, while paper ballots do initially seem a more secure voting method fraud existed long before software entered the scene. Forgery, stuffing ballot boxes, hanging chads, altering voter rolls, etc. can all be solved or mitigated to some extent by using software (check out Electronic Voting - Evaluating the Threat http://www.cpsr.org/prevsite/conferences/cfp93/shamos.html). Here's a quick excerpt: "Ballot systems are sometimes naively regarded as the safest, a vestige of our faith in the superiority of paper records over the electronic. The dream is that in order to verify the election one need do no more than gather up the ballots and tabulate them a second time. However, ballot systems are not only unsafe but completely unauditable. Ballots, particularly punched-cards, are easily forged. They must also be physically handled and transported, which provides the opportunity for substitution. Even if they are counted at the polling place by inserting them directly into the tabulating equipment, they must be gathered up for delivery to a storage location to be retained in case of a recount. Ballots are frequently damaged or altered by the equipment during tabulation. In this case, a recount will reveal a discrepancy between the original totals and the new results, but it is impractical to determine how the voter actually voted, since it cannot be readily discovered what condition the ballot was in when cast originally. And all of these problems arise before we even consider tampering in the form of ballot stuffing. When you see a ballot, try to imagine where it came from, whether the person who cast it was authorized to do so and whether the ballot is still in the same condition as it was when cast. You can't tell and neither can a tabulating machine, and no audit trail can change that." This isn't to say that I'm behind electronic voting 100%, it's still largely an experiment. However, since the U.S. has decided to undertake this experiment with or without an open source solution, it's certainly better to provide this option than to cede it all to private, closed solutions. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!