____/ alt on Wednesday 05 September 2007 04:29 : \____
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 02:58:47 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> ____/ alt on Tuesday 04 September 2007 22:18 : \____
>>
>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:02:56 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Voting machines ditch ballots in Scotland
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | In total, 140,000 ballots were logged as spoilt. The BBC says more than
>>>> | half of these were rejected by the machines, with no chance for a person
>>>> | to judge whether or not the ballot was actually spoilt.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/03/scotland_votes/
>>>>
>>>> That's quite a fiasco.
>>>
>>> Everybody say after me:
>>>
>>> Paper trail, paper trail, paper trail, paper trail... (ad nauseum).
>>
>> You can have digital 'paper trail', provided your machines and system is
>> reliable.
>>
>
> Voting is one of the few things that I feel are too sensitive to trust
> anything but a piece of paper.
>
> I've posted this here before, but I'll post it again.
>
> All voting machines should print out a ballot that has a human readable
> section as well as a machine (barcode) readable section. This allows for
> an easy to tabulate voting system but ensures that abuses cannot occur.
If it prints out paper, how would you know the machine itself printed the right
thing? Let's assume that you can let the voter have a copy of that paper, or
at least give verification.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | {Hide sig} {Show sig} >{Close Application}<
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
05:20:01 up 29 days, 8:13, 5 users, load average: 0.88, 1.24, 1.54
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
