BBV on Talk of the Nation (NPR) now

[qb]

Call in 1-800-989-8255

[qb]

1. Guy Duncan, owner of a touch screen company is on

sorry, I didn't get the name of his company (IVOTRONIC?)
Claims his system has no hard drive or operating system.
Claims his system produces a "paper audit".
They're working on a voter verifiable receipt.

[LibInternationalist]

3. that sounded like a good thing to me ---

the system they're working on with an additional paper ballot box -- that's the way it should be done

[janekat]

2. anybody have a link? n/t

[Metatron]

6. TOTN

http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/index.html

Site says, "The audio for this program will be available online after 6PM ET, 3PM PT."

[markbark]

4. I may be a real techno-geek most of the time.....

but when it comes to voting.. I'm a dyed in the wool Luddite.

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with a piece of paper and a sharpie?



--MAB

[Andy_Stephenson]

5. To Technical?

:shrug:

[Cocoa]

8. too much paper

also they would need to be hand-counted, which is inaccurate, and which takes longer, which leads to other problems.

[markbark]

9. Oh horsesh*t!

Counting would take too long?
How long is too long?
Telling the viewers who won 45 minutes after the polls close may make for good ratings, but the idea behind an election is to select our representatives NOT to give the local newsies good ratings.

How many people vote in your precinct? 1000? 10,000?
A small group of people can plow thru several thousand pieces of paper in a few hours. You'd know who won by the next morning.
(Again, this might piss off the networks because they have to sit around twiddling their electronic thumbs whilst the votes are counted. I've see nothing but hours of drivel filling the airwaves anyway so what's the big diff? Fuck 'em! Make 'em wait!)

After they're done counting, the precincts can report up the food chain and the states can compile the results. If anyone has a problem with the count, there is a pile o' paper to go thru again.

A hunk o' paper with a big honkin' "X" next to your candidate's name is would do a lot to bolster folks confidence that your vote was counted correctly.

To quote a great fictional engineer: "The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain!"

--MAB

(on edit -- Damn Typos! :) )

[TacticalPeek]

16. On the horse's nose.

Of course, this doesn't 'work' for voting machine manufacturers.

But it seems to work for Canada and Australia, too, IIRC.

And its distributed processing, with each precinct counting it's own. Utterly doable.

[SharonAnn]

17. Exactly. Really, the only two things technology can help with

are:
1. Ease of voter selection entry (using visual techniques, multiple languages, etc.)
2. Tallying the votes after the election is completed.

These two things take advantage of technology's flexibility and speed. In order to use them in the context of a fair election, there needs to be a VVPB (Voter Verified Paper Ballot) created as a result of the voter selection. That remains the official record of the vote and can be either hand counted or machine counted through various techniques. In any case, robust auditing should be done with either technique and a recount should be done if there are discrepancies.

[AP]

18. Have more precincts -- running three times as many precincts

would probably still be cheaper than the millions of dollars spent on those machines (and don't pretend for a minute that millions of taxpayer dollars going to private corporations isn't a HUGE part of the reason we have electronic voting in the first place).

[htuttle]

12. Hand counting works in Canada

They don't seem to have the sorts of problems you mention. They get the election results pretty fast, too.

[ParanoidPat]

19. Please don't try to confuse US of all people with.....

.....the difference between punch card ballots and paper ballots with a mark on them next to a name that can be easily read by anyone! LOL! :evilgrin:
Nice try though! ;-)

[stickdog]

20. JESUS CHRIST! What the hell are you talking about?

Double verified hand counting is the most accurate possible way to count votes. Anybody who isn't a complete technophobe and who doesn't have an agenda would tell you this.

Are you James Baker or just one of his disciples on vote counting accuracy?

[shance]

15. Not a damn thing Mark, except maybe for your average tyrant.

Tangible is touchable is traceable****

Paper is the only way. BOTTOM LINE.

[qb]

7. Guy Duncan of Voter Registration Systems

The other guest, Doug ?
"Very little leverage to find out if the code is honest"
Avanti & Populex are the only ones he knows that currently have a paper verification.

Guy Duncan talking about how excited he is about HAVA. Avoided the question about code security, and Ira called him on it & passed the question to Doug!

Doug: "Fly-by-night" voting systems!

[DEMActivist]

10. Doug = Professor Doug Jones of Iowa State University, maybe?

If so, he's a wonderful advocate for our side.

The "fly by night" comment sounds like it could be him. :evilgrin:

[qb]

11. I think it is Doug Jones

Talking about internet voting in Geneva, Switzerland but is concerned about the risks. Doesn't see it in U.S. in near future.

[arendt]

13. Yes it was the Iowa Doug Jones

I thought I heard that the Duncan Guy was with ES&S.
In any case, he was a total pollyana-ish shill for the
machines.

Although, he said the companies could easily provide
printers.

arendt

[qb]

14. This show was good for our side.

Guy Duncan gave a pretty lame defense of proprietary code, and actually agreed that making the code visible would be a good idea. When asked if he could provide paper verification on his machines, he said "sure!" instead of claiming it's a bad idea.

edit: He also promoted their optical scan machines as an option if you want paper verification right now.

[Eloriel]

21. I've always been in favor of optical scans instead

You've got your built-in voter-verified paper ballot right there.

Of course, there are still the same vulnerabilities (hacking, inside code manipulation), but -- well, like I said, you've got your built-in VVPB.

Edit: and when I say "always," I mean even while Georgia was considering buying computerized voting machines.

Eloriel

[AP]

22. The optical scan machines should have no hard drive/no software--the

code should be known to the public and imbedded on a chip which can't be altered.

And you should be able to have hand recounts for any reason.