[ale] Its over. Maybe

[Geoffrey]

Tejus Parikh wrote:
>> First, voting devices should not be monopolized, in the case of the
>>  Diebold systems, they are.
> 
> 
>> Second, the systems should be reviewed by non-partisan technically
>>  capable people.
>> 
> 
> It all sounds good, but what's a non-partisan third party.  At very 
> least, the employees or volunteers are going to have a opinion on who
>  should win, just by their nature of being citizens in this country.
>  Therefore, there is always the possibility that they will not
> disclose a flaw that could help their candidate win.  Perhaps it is
> better to have the two most partisan groups we can find to conduct
> the study, but perhaps they won't disclose flaws that didn't record
> votes for Nader.

It would be a group of people, and it would not be difficult to 
assemble.  I would start with Aaron and Jonathan. :)

> Further more, the technically capable part may be in conflict with
> point 1.  It could be very difficult to find a group of people that
> are capable of knowing every in and out of a dozen proprietary
> systems.

It could/should be done.  You could require the developers to spend time 
with the group.

>> Third, voting devices such as these should be randomly seized and a
>>  complete verification of the system be completed, again by a 
>> non-partisan group.  That's to say, they could walk into a polling
>>  place, anywhere in this country, select a machine and after
>> protecting the existing votes on that device, proceed to validate
>> and verify that it is functioning correctly.
> 
> 
> I have visions of men in black suits busting into a crowded polling 
> place, knocking over grannies and grandpa's to get to a machine, like
>  EMT's on TV.  It would be too easy to go to a crowded polling placed
>  filled with people of a demographic you don't like, in the hopes
> that the longer lines that will result from having some machines
> off-line causes people to get impatient and go home.

Regardless, the randomness is necessary.

> 
> As far as I can tell, from reading this thread, any level of the
> system is open for abuse.  I guess at some point, you have to trust
> somebody.

Sure, but you put in place as many checks and balances as is possible. 
I could drive a car down the road without a seatbelt, no brakes, no 
headlights at 2am, but that doesn't mean I have to.

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey