Comments on: Tennessee is Poised to Move Backwards Again

By: Hacking Tennessee’s Vote « Roane County Democratic Party

Hacking Tennessee’s Vote « Roane County Democratic Party — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:00:49 +0000

[...] Tennessee is Poised to Move Backwards Again [...]

By: eldano

eldano — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:13:31 +0000

Thomas, I’ve been trying to argue the point of not focusing on a recount, but on random quality testing. The problem with the current system (as I see it) is the lack of a voter-verifiable receipt. These receipts would allow the voter to confirm their votes, and could be compared to the electronic results for certain periods, or at certain locations. This should ensure the integrity of the vote.

But Mary brings up another point: throughput. You can move many more voters through a location using optical scan ballots. Having used many kinds of voting system, they do seem to be the fastest and easiest to use. I’m sure many voters have been dissuaded because of the time commitment required to vote at busy times of day.

And I promise you, she is no conservative.

By: Hacking Tennessee’s Vote

Hacking Tennessee’s Vote — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:27:45 +0000

[...] No paper trail. Lost votes. Stolen Votes. Or the Tennessee Voter Confidence Act? [...]

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:07:38 +0000

And just to clarify, there is no open source option I’ve seen in Tennessee yet. There are plenty of open source voting solutions available, but given how conservative you have shown yourself to be, I’m betting you will denounce them without doing any real research into their benefits or cost.

Just in case you happen to want to check it out I’ll start you with one link: http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:52:54 +0000

Mary, are you sure you’re not a Republican? You can’t seem to answer easy questions and only hear what you want to hear. Do you or do you not have an answer to my questions regarding cost? Asking another question is not an answer.

As for your questions (notice how I keep answering yours), you are correct that there is no open source option. So why not create one? As long as we shun all progress like you want, then there won’t be an open source option by November. If people would quit complaining and actually do something then we could easily make it happen by then. As for the reliability, audits and recounts I’ve already explained how paper is NOT any of those because it’s all based on biased human actions.. but you don’t want to hear it so you’ve ignored it yet again.

As long as you remain 100% focused on moving backwards, you will never move forward.

By: Mary Mancini

Mary Mancini — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:40:09 +0000

I understood your “cost” question. My response was to let you know that the people who should be answering the cost question are the ones who are using cost as an excuse to continue to use the unverifiable and unreliable electronic voting system we are using now instead of following the law and implementing a paper ballot system.

By: Mary Mancini

Mary Mancini — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:37:43 +0000

Thomas, There is no open source option. None. There will not be an open source option by the November 2010 election. There is however, a paper ballot option that will be counted electronically and used for audits and recounts. The paper ballot option is the most reliable and it is what the law requires. It’s the only way for all sides/parties/viewpoints to be able to verify that there was no mistakes or fraud in the election.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:24:48 +0000

Mary, I don’t think you’re reading for comprehension here. I said specifically that electronic voting machines are more expensive up front. I posed my cost questions to you and anyone else who gives cost as a reason for going back to paper ballots. I’m still waiting for a response to those..

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:20:50 +0000

If the software is not open source then THAT is the problem. Not the machines. Why would you completely abandon a more advanced and more accurate solution when you hit the first problem? I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t make any sense to me. If that’s how we always handled things that didn’t work the way we expected them to, then we’d still be living in caves and no progress would ever be made.

As for software being buggy, that means it has not been thoroughly tested. Code is very precise. If it doesn’t work right then it’s because it’s not coded right. It doesn’t just randomly work sometimes and not work other times. If proper testing is done then it can truly be 100% accurate. But like you said, that requires the source to be open. All sides/parties/viewpoints need to be able to verify and test so there is no chance for mistakes or fraud.

By: Mary Mancini

Mary Mancini — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:06:32 +0000

And by the way, the people arguing to keep the system we have now are arguing that the move to paper would be more costly. It’s not true, of course, but its what they’re saying so you might want to ask Sec. of State Tre Hargett and State Election coordinator Mark Goins your “cost” questions: But if that’s your reason for not using [paper ballots], then how much is too much? At what point is it more important to save money than to have an accurate election? What if legislators negotiated a 50% discount? Would it be worth it then? How much is a fair and accurate democracy worth to you?