Letting the Voter Count

Happy Monkey · 10-20-2004, 01:17 PM

It would, indeed, be a good thing if they added a system of electronic auditing, encoded timestamps, and redundant storage. They haven't. In fact, they haven't added a system of human auditing - they say that the code is a trade secret, and nobody can see it, and object to any testing of the system that they don't conduct themselves - with good reason. Independent testing regularly fails.

Troubleshooter · 10-20-2004, 01:22 PM

So, in essence it falls back on the same old problem.

The technology is more mature than the operators.

Sad really.

glatt · 10-20-2004, 01:40 PM

I'm a big fan of technology, and far from a luddite, but technology can fail. When it fails, it's almost always because it was implemented poorly by humans. As Happy Monkey mentioned, this stuff hasn't really been tested yet. And the big test is an election that will impact the world.

Sure, in theory, an electronic system can be set up to allow secure and accurate voting. However, in reality, that system will be run by temporary employees who have received just an hour or two of training in its use. It will be created by companies that hide their work, and it will be implemented by election officials who don't necessarily have technology backgrounds.

A hybrid solution, like scanners that read paper ballots is really the best of both worlds. You can use the machines to quickly tabulate the results, but the paper is still there in case there are screwy results or questions.

10-20-2004, 01:17 PM	#1
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	It would, indeed, be a good thing if they added a system of electronic auditing, encoded timestamps, and redundant storage. They haven't. In fact, they haven't added a system of human auditing - they say that the code is a trade secret, and nobody can see it, and object to any testing of the system that they don't conduct themselves - with good reason. Independent testing regularly fails. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

10-20-2004, 01:22 PM	#2
Troubleshooter The urban Jane Goodall Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 3,012	So, in essence it falls back on the same old problem. The technology is more mature than the operators. Sad really. __________________ I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle

10-20-2004, 01:40 PM	#3
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	I'm a big fan of technology, and far from a luddite, but technology can fail. When it fails, it's almost always because it was implemented poorly by humans. As Happy Monkey mentioned, this stuff hasn't really been tested yet. And the big test is an election that will impact the world. Sure, in theory, an electronic system can be set up to allow secure and accurate voting. However, in reality, that system will be run by temporary employees who have received just an hour or two of training in its use. It will be created by companies that hide their work, and it will be implemented by election officials who don't necessarily have technology backgrounds. A hybrid solution, like scanners that read paper ballots is really the best of both worlds. You can use the machines to quickly tabulate the results, but the paper is still there in case there are screwy results or questions.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)