[geeks] I just saw...

[Lionel Peterson]

>From: Charles Shannon Hendrix <shannon at widomaker.com>
>Date: 2006/11/07 Tue PM 11:09:54 CST
>To: The Geeks List <geeks at sunhelp.org>
>Subject: Re: [geeks] I just saw...

>Tue, 07 Nov 2006 @ 22:16 -0600, Lionel Peterson said:
>
>> All this talk of paper trail and audit receipts is a bad idea, in my
>> opinion - if a machine makes two independent records,one electronic,
>> one on paper - if they diverge, which is trusted? If one is not
>> trusted, why include it in the process?
>
>So you would be happy if cash registers didn't give you a receipt?

Well, I know you're making the generic case - not speaking to me specifically - but since I deposit my reciepts for the vast majority of my purchases in a trash can at my first opportunity, the need to generate a reciept for all but the largest of my purchases is not required.

>I understand what you are saying, but that's an old problem isn't it?

Yes.

>To me the solution is the same as it is in the retail space: the
>receipts are created as duplicates, and the supercede the system.

Well, the first problem is if folks have receipts, thay can go and prove to another person that they voted a certain way, either in response to pressure or inducement. It used to happen in America, and it could happen again.

"Vote for me, and I'll buy you a beer at McGinty's Pub after the election - just bring your reciept showing who you voted for."

>Or do you think that just wouldn't work.

Folks shouldn'thave reciepts (which are distinct from an audit trail). If the electronic system can't be trusted, but paper can - why are we pushing electronic?

>Note: I'm not arguing for electronic voting, since I don't really
>understand why people think we need it.  I've never really seen a
>reasonable comparison in cost and time between various voting system.

We agree.

>I'm just commenting on the receipt versus system idea and noting that it
>is an old problem.

Yes.

>> We don't need answers that fast IMHO, and it' hard for me to justify
>> the expense to provide answers that fast - but that's me.
>
>So far the electronic precincts locally don't seem any faster.
>
>I don't really mind the idea, and I don't see what is so hard about
>making it secure.

Either you trust electonic voting or not, and if you feel you need the paper audit trail, I argue you don't really trust it.

>After all, it is fairly easy to tamper with existing voting machines and
>I imagine that card reader could be tampered with too.

Tamper with one machine (mechanical or electronic), and you can impact many ballots.

Tamper with a paper ballot, and you can impact one ballot.

To me it's as simple as that.

Lionel

(I have to say I am pleased that we can have this discussion and keep it at a respectable (intellectual) level. That is one of the things I really like about this forum - we all don't have to agree, but we do have to have reasons behind our stated opinions when we raise them here, and that's a good thing).