Re: [tlug] Somewhat OT- open source software for US voting machines

["SL Baur" <steve@example.com>]

On 9/30/08, Pietro Zuco <zmlist@example.com> wrote:

> Yes it is a great idea. I just wonder how much time it's going to take
>  for M$ to pay money under the table to change that ideas...

No, it's a terrible idea.  The issue of Open -vs- Closed source on
E-voting is a red herring.

Note that the message I was responding to referred to a
"Nixon number", defining it as the number of people needed
to change an election's results.

I wrote in Slashdot on the issue of electronic voting:
> We are treating E voting like a minor IT procurement
> project, when we should be treating it as Democracy's
> Manhattan Project.

I presume the "Nixon" number refers to the 1960 election, stolen in
Chicago by a handful of votes?

Right idea, wrong project. The Manhattan Project was a massively
funded, mad dash for survival and let's face it, E-voting just is not
that important. Ideally it would be more like the mission to the moon,
which was also massively funded, but each step of the way was
carefully and meticulously planned and tested before being deployed.

As a matter of fact, it's really not a problem worth spending money on
solving. There are some things that are done better by hand and
counting election ballots is one of them.

Thomas Edison's first invention was an automatic vote recorder for
legislatures. It failed to generate any interest.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Thomas_Edison [conservapedia.com]


> He obtained his first patent on his first "real" invention,
> an automatic vote-recording machine. However, as with
> many inventors first attempts, it was not well received
> and turned out to be unmarketable. This was not because
> it did not work; it worked well, it was because the market
> was not receptive to the invention.

The way I first read about this was more instructive, but I cannot
find where the more detailed reference is. Edison was taken aside by
one lawmaker in Washington who explained to him that if counting votes
in Congress was too fast, they could well wind up voting for
legislation that should not pass.

There is no need to rush the process. There is no need to declare
elections over a month before votes are cast. There is no need to
declare a winner before all voters have voted when votes are being
cast. There is no NEED for E-voting. 12-24 hours to handcount paper
ballots is sufficient and also enough to have the counting
audited/supervised by independent parties.

-sb