[Osx-nutters] 66 percent think voting machines will be hacked

[Charles Bennett]

rogerhoward at rogerroger.org wrote:
>
> On Oct 19, 2006, at 3:54 PM, bennettc at ohio.edu wrote:
>
>> Roger, we can disagree on many many things but this really isn't one 
>> of them at all.
>
>
> Quite certain that you have commented that the only reason we care is 
> because it's our party that's out of power, and if the tables were 
> turned that we'd be nowhere near this issue. I could be wrong, and I'm 
> definitely paraphrasing, but given the volume of messages on this list 
> I'm not about to try to pin down one message.
>
> I'm certain, by the same token, you agree in principle that votes 
> should all count, and didn't say we disagree on that point. Only that 
> you have suggested in the past that the only reason hell is being 
> raised about it now is because of partisanship, rather than the 
> peculiarities of both 2000 and 2004.
>
> -Rh

I'll save you the hassle of finding it.

> On Oct 10, 2006, at 12:31 PM, Chuck Bennett wrote:
>
>> I hope the lawsuit is pursued to a conclusion.
>>
>>
>> What stuns me is  the resistance to paper tape backup for the 
>> electronic machines.
>>
>>
>> Whatever the machine says is taken as gospel, with no real way to 
>> verify it.
>>
>>
>> This isn't a partisan issue.  Or at least it shouldn't be.
>>
>>
>> I want to know that the elections a fair, whether my side wins or 
>> looses is not the point.
>>
>>
>> I think electronic voting 'could' be less error prone, but I'd rather 
>> see an open-source version on standard hardware
>>
>> with paper tape backup..    Oh, and a guard that protects the 
>> machines once they have been certified as being ready to be used..
>>


Perhaps you were thinking of the other chuck..   ;-)

=c=