GuvWurld: Inherent Uncertainty

[Wilms]

Inherent Uncertainty

May 21, 2006

by GuvWurld

So where does this Newsweek article take us? Levy is trying to comment that we should be concerned but he doesn't quite grasp the problem. The closest he gets is at the very end:

"In other words, it's unlikely that every voter using an electronic voting device in 2006 will know for sure that his or her vote will be reflected in the actual totals."

It is not a matter of being unlikely, and it is not an open question, as the article's title suggests. Unverifiable voting, by definition, produces inconclusive outcomes. We are being asked to have blind trust which will continue to result in a lack of unanimous acceptance of election results. There is no rational basis for confidence in the results reported from elections in America today.

I wouldn't expect Newsweek to offer such paradigm-shattering analysis. Instead, while raising questions and feeding the existing and growing doubt, the effect is to further reinforce the inherent uncertainty which leaves ordinary Americans divided about what constitutes reality. Rather than stating unequivocally that we cannot know for sure the true outcome of an election held under these conditions, Newsweek appears to be giving ground coveted by those seeking to wake up the masses to America's election problems. This classic technique is called a limited hangout.

snip

http://guvwurld.blogspot.com/2006/05/inherent-uncertainty.html

[bleever]

1. Equal protection, baby.

That's what separated us from spending the last few years with Al Gore as our president.

[Land Shark]

3. yeah, and you better get used to it, because Bush v Gore is the leading

election law case in the land and it's already made one comeback appearance. Stewart v. Blackwell (6th Cir 2006). This case held punchcards and central count optical scan voting systems to be unconstitutional under equal protection using the test of "residual vote rates" to distinguish the good from the bad, and also applying the rule of Bush v Gore to voting systems instead of to counties to strike down material differences in residual vote rates as violations of the equality principle. It would have held paper ballots to be unconstitutional based on their higher "residual vote rates" IMHO, but paper ballots were not before the court - since not used in Ohio 2000 - the data being litigated.

[GuvWurld]

2. Thanks Wilms

Anybody looking for more on the whole idea of inherent uncertainty, which is created all the time in myriad ways, all of which contribute to manipulating and controlling us, please read Blueprint For Peaceful Revolution (.pdf).

[Land Shark]

4. THe Guv Rules once again;

We come right here to DU for paradigm-shattering analysis, knowing we can't get it from Newsweak. Thanks Guv.

[GuvWurld]

5. kick

[Kurovski]

6. K&R

Three levels of vulnerability built into the system.

Three portals to easy vote manipulation. That seems pretty certain to me. Why have them in the system if you don't intend to use them?

Maybe that's the only way the Newsweek editors would allow the Levy article to see print. That "fair and balanced" stuff sure is important when the corporate media decides it is.

Has anyone emailed Levy about the article and gotten a response?

Still and all, a suprising article given the dearth of corporate national news coverage of the ominous and ongoing disaster that is electronic voting.