Hunrobe wrote:
> >[email protected]
>
> wrote:
>
> >Here's a question for you, why are the companies that own the non paper
> >ballot voting machines refusing to allow an audit of the source code? Do
> >you think making a program that counts things is such a national security
> >secret that no one should be allowed to look at the source code?
> >
> >Or do you prefer to be ruled, oh, sorry, governed by people who
> >obstruct vote verification?
>
> 1- No one has offered anything like evidence of any vote fraud.
I see, for you're playing catch 22 here; there's no evidence of vote fraud
because nobody can verify the voting process, so without verification,
there's no fraud.
And so far, there is evidence of voter fraud, try listening to more news
than fox for a change.
> They have
> merely said it was/is "possible". If I assert that I think it is possible you
> have bankrolled terrorists should I then have the right to review all of your
> financial records?
Only if you're in the government, the patriot act sees to that. Any more
dumb questions?
> 2- You have not offered any example/proof/instance of any *governmental*
> resistance to a review of the software used to tabulate votes. Do you think you
> are being governed by the private companies that produced those machines?
Think? A private corporation can collect our votes, tabulate them, and
give the results without a shred of proof, and without any possibility of
verification.. What do you call it?
> 3- The results would be made public but the audit you want would have to remain
> secret to protect the companies' proprietary rights so who will audit the
> auditors?
I assert that their proprietary rights shouldn't exist on simple counting software
for public elections. If the process can't be audited and verified, it shouldn't
be used.
Here's a question for you. Florida law specifies a recount in close elections.
How do you do that with paperless ballots? Yoiu don't see a conflict there?
--
-TTFN
-Steven