Paul: You said:
Mike, I asked what ballots are you going to hand-count. [endquote] And I answered you. I thought that my answer was specific. 1, We would count a hand-marked ballot. A piece of paper or cardboard which you had marked, eilther by pen or by punching it with a stylus. No machine would be involved in the process. 2. Or, if, on the other hand, you voted by touchscreen (for some reason), as you spoke of, the voting machine would print out a paper copy of your vote. You would carefully check it, to make sure that it was as you intended. Then you'd put it in the slot of the ballot-box. Then, along with the other ballots, would be handcounted, a) as the primary and only count mode; or b) as a backup to a machine count, in the event that the machine count is contested. This is the 3rd time that I've answered that question.Can anyone else suggest another way that I could word the answer, so that it would be clearer? While I'm repeating my answer, I might as well also repeat that, unless a machine count can be made provbably secure, the count should be _only_ a handcount. Y I vote by touching a touch-screen, and the machine gives me a receipt. You say I COULD give you a paper ballot to hand-count, [endquote] Or I suppose that you could keep or dispose of it, if you don't want there to be a reliable record of your vote :-) You continued: 1but if I just voted by pressing a portion of a touch-sensitive-display-screen, what are you going to hand-count? [endquote] The paper or cardboard ballot that the machine has printed out, based on your touchscreen vote, after you have carefully examined the ballot to make sure that it is as you want it to be, and then deposited it in the slot in the ballot box. As I said, that handcount would be a) the primary and only count; or b) a backup to a machine count, just in case the machine count result is contested. . You continued: My touch is not verifiable by a hand-count of what the machine recorded. [endquote] Of course it is, if you have carefully examined the hardcopy that the machine has printed out, and then deoposited it in the slot of lthe ballot box. In any case, I don't advocate the use of touchscreen, or any other kind of machine balloting. It would be better to use a simple cardboard or paper ballot, marked by pen or punch-stylus. But, if machine balloting is used, as you speak of, then at least there should be a hardcopy that the voter would examine before putting in the ballot-box slot. You continued: It can only be verified by asking me if what your machine's record matches what the machine printed out for me. [endquote] Ungrammatical and difficultly-decipherable sentence. But yes, the voter would be asked to examine the printed hardcopy, to ensure that it is the ballot that s/he wants to vote. No, it would be quite pointless to ask you if what the machine recorded matches what it printed out. How could you, or anyone, know that? There would be no particular reason to believe that such a match exists. The hardcopy is the reliable record of your vote. You continued: And you can't "hand count" that without asking me if what you're counting matched my ballot. [endquote] Nonsense. What we'd be handcounting would _be_ your ballot. You continued: You continued: And you can't do THAT without violating the principles of all voting systems. [endquote] Don't worry,no one will ask you if what you put in the ballot box is your ballot. I'm guessing that you're afraid that someone will know which ballot was voted by Paul Kislanko. No one will know that. But, what we will know is that every ballot put into the ballot box was examined carefully by the voter (or should have been), to ensure that it is what the voter wants hir ballot to say. I emphasize that I don't advocate using a machine for balloting or count at all. Mike Ossipoff
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info