READER COMMENTS ON
"'Daily Voting News' For May 15, 2007"
(5 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 5/16/2007 @ 5:45 am PT...
Hmmmm ... when an athlete fails to turn up for drug testing that athlete can't play.
One reason they may not want to be tested is that they have steroids in their system.
The Senate Bill S 559 has language that makes the source code subject to public scrutiny.
The steroids will show up if they take the test, under that Bill, so expect a no show.
Only the honest need apply for election duty if that Bill becomes law.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 5/16/2007 @ 6:59 am PT...
H.R. 811 got a lot better in committee; almost all of the loopholes were taken out. That is so cool.
While it's still theoretically possible for DREs to be used under the H.R.811 regime, they will be *so* much more expensive that hopefully very few places will consider them. Notably, the requirement that paper ballots be available for all voters who ask for them will destroy the "don't need to print ballots therefore cheaper" claim. The absolute requirement that the machine allow voters to correct any errors made by the machine should prevent all current systems ("behind glass" paper trails) from qualifying.
The only hole I see is that 80% number: no audits if the machines say 80% victory. No serious election has been won by that much in a long time (the biggest blowouts I've ever seen, such as Hillary's Senate primary, were less than that); hopefully if someone steals an election that way, it will be obvious enough to force recounts *politically*.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 5/16/2007 @ 7:04 am PT...
While source code disclosure is needed, source code disclosure will not fix the problems with e-voting, nor will it prevent the systems from being gamed to the max. That's because current e-voting systems were not designed with security in mind.
And even Open Source cannot solve the fatal flaws in e-voting.
And just as source code disclosure has already been deliberately thrown out of the campanion bill, hr 811, so it will also be thrown out of s 559... thus making this particular argument moot.
"Holt II" = No Meaningful Disclosure Allowed.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 5/16/2007 @ 7:15 am PT...
... Nathanael Nerode said hopefully...
"H.R. 811 got a lot better in committee; almost all of the loopholes were taken out. That is so cool."
That's funny... the text of the bill passed out of committee is still strangely unavailable to the public...
And even the text of the Lofgren amendment alone has serious issues.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 5/19/2007 @ 4:35 am PT...
The original HR 811 is better than the revised, because it is in sink with S 559.