Reply #42: Now I get it. In fact, you'd trust your vote in an inadequately audited computer tabulated election. [View All]

[Wilms]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong about that or about your saying otherwise just a matter of months ago.

It's ok. People change their mind.

But I'm disappointed that your position lacks the rigor I've enjoyed in your posts. You're reaching deep with arguments acting as if a perfect alternative is offered...as if a ballot that could be legibly marked, is...as if an election who's individual ballots can be audited, are...that anything correctable is set aright. I could go on. YOU could go on. But, for now, you seem happier with contrariness.

Still, I'm surprised you argue as though you're unaware of the vulnerabilities of computerized vote tallying, the futility of testing evoting equipment, or the lack of adequate audits (if only on the local levels). Meanwhile, not once do I recall you mentioning Bryan Pfaffenberger, who's work is an analysis of the technical and political aspects---clearly your area of concern. As a result, your commentary on Novick, who you've noted on a number of occasions, seems especially awkward and misplaced given her work is centered on a legal argument you aren't taking issue with. You've not challenged the position she has taken with the levers over evoting. You've just commented on the ones she's made with regard to HCPB over evoting, and exit polls.

Further, Novick prevailing in a Constitutional Law case against lever replacement is but one way New York State could retain them...but there are others.

That I'd need to point that out--to you--strikes me as remarkable.