[ale] Its over. Maybe

[Geoffrey]

Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 18:57 -0500, Geoffrey wrote:
> 
> 
>>I'm not suggesting that there should be 10 vendors building voting 
>>machines, what I'm suggesting is that all electronic voting machines 
>>should be reviewed by someone other than parties who have a vested 
>>interest in said company.  You can attack a monopoly on either axis.
> 
> 
> But that has happened and you are still not satisfied.

That has not happened in such a way that the system has been properly 
reviewed.

> Earlier you left
> the impression that in order to be satisfied YOU had to see the source
> code too.  There is no end to this sort of issue if you can't clearly
> define what it takes to qualify.

Please show me where I gave you the impression that I needed to see the 
code?  My original post on this:

"I'd still like to be able to verify that my vote was counted properly.
You can not do this without a paper trail and review of the source code
by an external non-partisan entity."

Which says that a non-partisan entity should review the source code.

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey