I'm for surety. Would you want your brain
surgeon to be sure s/he was right 1% of the time? I'd go for as much
as surety as possible. Hand count all.
Nan
Neal McBurnett wrote:
I choose option #3, which was the original citizens request, starting
over a year ago: BOTH fully-disclosed software/hardware with
procedural protections, and a hand-counted audit of 1% of the votes.
-Neal
On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 08:15:06AM -0700, Evan Daniel Ravitz wrote:
Me three. #2 Hand count. When in doubt, use the tried and true.
Evan
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Ralph Shnelvar wrote:
Dear Paul:
Me, too. #2.
Open source is not open hardware.
How hard would it be to put in hardware that looks for a bit pattern in
memory that switches the software from "real mode" to "test mode" so that
bogus data moves through the system?
The answer to that rhetorical question is: Not hard at all.
Ralph Shnelvar
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:32:18 -0700, you wrote:
Evan,
Lets take a poll right now and see how people feel.
1. open source software with procedural protections to make sure
the source we inspect is what we vote with.
or
2. hand-counted paper ballots
before NEXT YEAR's election.
-----
and I'll start with #2
|