"The ruling states that while the voting was unconstitutional (read: illegal) because the software used on the machines is unreliable, they have not proven that any mistakes were made, nor do they rule out the possibility of using such machines in the future, when stuff will be cooler and work better. "
This sentence, perhaps accidentally, sums up everything that's wrong about the evoting debate. There's no proof any mistakes were made - yet because it is *possible* some have, they're bad. Meanwhile, no one seems to wonder why the mistakes in all of the other technologies are overlooked, *even when proven to have errors*.
Hand count you say? Guess what - we have really simple paper ballots in our federal elections up here in Canada - the kind that should be brain dead simple to count and get right - and you know what, when there's a recount, every time they recount the same ballots - *they get a different number*, sometimes by quite a bit.
Yet, I don't hear anyone calling for the elimination of this provably unreliable technology...
But paper ballots are hard to hack.
Uh.. they're written on with a pencil. If I worked as an elections tabulator, I could *easily* change them, or insert new ones in the system.
And so on.. and so on.
This is the danger of 'crusading'.. you only see the one thing in front of you want to see.
Then again, it does make it easier for the real cheats who know what to avoid.
hilarious. i guess it's the fast paced nature of the internet itself, but people just skim through the page and ignore arguments that have been posted before. it's always easy to pick the cherries out of context. same goes for Sektor, btw who seems to be immune to discussion. people have particularily mentioned, that the whole point IS NOT UNRELIABILITY. the court didn't rule out electronic elections, but the WAY THEY WERE MADE.
something that is as important as elections must be VERIFIABLE. that's pretty much it. if you guys would like to put your future in the hands of some closed "da vinci" proprietary code, which is unaccessible to the public, that's a matter of taste.
and you know what? paper elections at least CAN be verified.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
"The ruling states that while the voting was unconstitutional (read: illegal) because the software used on the machines is unreliable, they have not proven that any mistakes were made, nor do they rule out the possibility of using such machines in the future, when stuff will be cooler and work better. "
This sentence, perhaps accidentally, sums up everything that's wrong about the evoting debate. There's no proof any mistakes were made - yet because it is *possible* some have, they're bad. Meanwhile, no one seems to wonder why the mistakes in all of the other technologies are overlooked, *even when proven to have errors*.
Hand count you say? Guess what - we have really simple paper ballots in our federal elections up here in Canada - the kind that should be brain dead simple to count and get right - and you know what, when there's a recount, every time they recount the same ballots - *they get a different number*, sometimes by quite a bit.
Yet, I don't hear anyone calling for the elimination of this provably unreliable technology...
But paper ballots are hard to hack.
Uh.. they're written on with a pencil. If I worked as an elections tabulator, I could *easily* change them, or insert new ones in the system.
And so on.. and so on.
This is the danger of 'crusading'.. you only see the one thing in front of you want to see.
Then again, it does make it easier for the real cheats who know what to avoid.
Thanks guys.
hilarious. i guess it's the fast paced nature of the internet itself, but people just skim through the page and ignore arguments that have been posted before. it's always easy to pick the cherries out of context. same goes for Sektor, btw who seems to be immune to discussion. people have particularily mentioned, that the whole point IS NOT UNRELIABILITY. the court didn't rule out electronic elections, but the WAY THEY WERE MADE.
something that is as important as elections must be VERIFIABLE. that's pretty much it. if you guys would like to put your future in the hands of some closed "da vinci" proprietary code, which is unaccessible to the public, that's a matter of taste.
and you know what? paper elections at least CAN be verified.