Isn't it *cheaper* (as well as more accurate) to have
preprinted ballots, optically scanned, then to have
an embedded computer print out a paper trail?
Ie, don't the benefits of volume printing beat the cheapest
printing tech?
Besides the other advantages of being self-verifiable,
more accurate,
At 7:56 AM -0700 9/11/04, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
The No paper trail, no trust coalition
In St. Thomas, of course, it's No paper trail, no trus' mon. ;-)
Cheers,
RAH
--
-
R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation
t 06:59 PM 9/10/04 -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
http://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/index.pl/article?id=7181775
Call for 'hackers' to try to access voting machines draws stern warning
The warning came after Elections officials received a faxed document
last
week stating that a $10,000 cash
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 11:30:35AM -0400, Sunder wrote:
Oops! Is that a cat exiting the bag?
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/?q=node/view/78
Apparently so. Going to www.blackboxvoting.org now just gives:
This Account Has Been Suspended
Please contact the billing/support department as soon
the correct votes. The voting system will then read the totals from the
bogus vote set. It takes only seconds to change the votes, and to date not
a single location in the U.S. has implemented security measures to fully
mitigate the risks.
This program is not stupidity or sloppiness. It was designed
Quoting Eric Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 11:30:35AM -0400, Sunder wrote:
Oops! Is that a cat exiting the bag?
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/?q=node/view/78
Apparently so. Going to www.blackboxvoting.org now just gives:
Don't break out the tinfoil hats yet.
No problem accessing blackbox.org and Parts 1 and 2 of
the file at 5:15 PM EST.
Perhaps there are blocks on some incoming routes.
illicit
back door entries. In GEMS, however,
by typing a two-digit code into a
hidden location, you can decouple the
books, so that the voting system
Contrary to widespread belief, it was more
likely American voters in Israel, not Florida,
who put George W. Bush in the White
House four years ago a phenomenon that has Kerry's supporters in
Israel vowing to do whatever it takes to make certain that doesn't
happen
again in November.
Those who
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
2000 in Florida. Only after all the overseas votes were counted,
including more than 12,000 from Israel alone, was Bush's election
victory certified.
Yet another reason to nuke Israel.
--
Yours,
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
0xBD4A95BF
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/15/politics/15vote.html?pagewanted=printposition=
The New York Times
June 15, 2004
He Pushed the Hot Button of Touch-Screen Voting
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Kevin Shelley is a big and voluble Irish politician, the son of a former
San Francisco mayor
David Jablon wrote:
[...] Where is the privacy problem with
Chaum receipts when Ed and others still have the freedom to refuse
theirs or throw them away?
At 11:43 AM 4/16/04 -0700, Ed Gerck wrote:
The privacy, coercion, intimidation, vote selling and election integrity
problems begin with
David Jablon wrote:
... *absolute* voter privacy
seems like an unobtainable goal, and it should not be used to trump
other important goals, like accountability.
But it IS assured today by paper ballots. Nothing less should be
accepted in electronic systems, otherwise new, easy and silent
a pre-defined,
unlikely voting pattern in each race of a ballot. This
exemplifies one reason why we need the 'second law' -- to
preserve unlinkability between ballots and voters.
So there's a need to design the system to have more voters
than ballot boxes to conform to your second law
I don't know...I've been following some of the voting discussion, and to
some extent for the rank-and-file, doesn't this still boil down to trust
us? (In other words, it looks like a large number of people have to work
very carefully to make sure the voting system is secure, and then voters
Ed Gerck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Jablon wrote:
The 'second law' also takes precedence: ballots are always secret, only
vote totals are known and are known only after the election ends.
What I see in serious
voting system research efforts are attempts to build systems
Ed Gerck[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Kelsey wrote:
At 11:05 AM 4/9/04 -0400, Trei, Peter wrote:
1. The use of receipts which a voter takes from the voting place to
'verify'
that their vote was correctly included in the total opens the way for
voter
coercion.
I think
a promotion... etc. Also
relevant is that voters may WANT to keep their receipts, for the same
reasons.
It seems a legitimate priority for a voting system to be designed to
assure voters that the system is working.
As long as this does not go against the 'first law' for public voting
systems
I think Ed's criticism is off-target. Where is the privacy problem with
Chaum receipts when Ed and others still have the freedom to refuse
theirs or throw them away?
It seems a legitimate priority for a voting system to be designed to
assure voters that the system is working. What I see
late get very little privacy.
Interestingly enough, proper shuffling of the votes is very much a central
concern of systems like VoteHere's!
The only system that by the laws of nature avoids this kind of attack is
the mechanical voting machine, which inherently only stores vote totals
At 11:05 AM 4/9/04 -0400, Trei, Peter wrote:
..
1. The use of receipts which a voter takes from the voting place to 'verify'
that their vote was correctly included in the total opens the way for voter
coercion.
I think the VoteHere scheme and David Chaum's scheme both claim to solve
this problem
One area we are not addressing in voting security is absentee ballots. The
use of absentee ballots is rising in US elections, and is even being
advocated as a way for individuals to get a printed ballot in jurisdictions
which use electronic-only voting machines. Political parties are
encouraging
John Kelsey wrote:
At 11:05 AM 4/9/04 -0400, Trei, Peter wrote:
1. The use of receipts which a voter takes from the voting place to 'verify'
that their vote was correctly included in the total opens the way for voter
coercion.
I think the VoteHere scheme and David Chaum's scheme
--- begin forwarded text
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: voting, KISS, etc.
From: Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:46:47 -0400
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think that those that advocate cryptographic protocols to ensure
voting
Perry I agree with you on all *except* that you are prejudiced
against folks who are not mobile, have immobile dependants, are busy
or agoraphobes.
In-person voting doesn't resist graveyard voting much better than
lining up the meat.
One could say that in-person voting rewards those too lazy
| privacy wrote:
| [good points about weaknesses in adversarial system deleted]
|
| It's baffling that security experts today are clinging to the outmoded
| and insecure paper voting systems of the past, where evidence of fraud,
| error and incompetence is overwhelming
privacy wrote:
[good points about weaknesses in adversarial system deleted]
It's baffling that security experts today are clinging to the outmoded
and insecure paper voting systems of the past, where evidence of fraud,
error and incompetence is overwhelming. Cryptographic
, Perry and other
KISS advocates have a very strong (albeit social) point. Joe
Sixpack can understand *and test* levers or Hollerith cards
or their optical counterparts. Good luck getting him to understand
number theory. It would be better in many estimations to have
even coercible voting than
.
The adversarial method does wonders for assuring that tampering is
difficult at all stages of a voting system.
On the contrary, the adversarial method is an extremely *weak* source
of security in a voting system.
In the first place, it fails for primary elections where there are
multiple
Thomas Shaddack wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Neil Johnson wrote:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
-- Ben Franklin
And if they are all armed ? They all starve.
Lambs can eat grass, which is usually unarmed
On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:06:43PM +, ken wrote:
Thomas Shaddack wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Neil Johnson wrote:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
-- Ben Franklin
And if they are all armed
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Neil Johnson wrote:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
-- Ben Franklin
And if they are all armed ? They all starve.
Lambs can eat grass, which is usually unarmed.
Optical Mark Sense - certainly the way to go if you want to computerize,
except that the manufacturers aren't big Bush Republican donors.
I'm used to mechanical lever machines in Delaware and New Jersey
(which seem to mostly work well except for write-in votes),
plus the punch-card things in
At 11:10 PM 11/26/03 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Cameras in the voting booth? Jesus Christ, you guys are morons. If
you
want to sell your vote, just vote absentee. The ward guy will even
stamp
and mail it for you. Happens every election.
For some reason I don't understand, people actually
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 11:18 am, Tim May wrote:
Liberty is characterized in the .sig below:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
-- Ben Franklin
And if they are all armed ? They all starve.
--
Neil
At 07:10 PM 11/25/03 -0800, Tim May wrote:
I have no problem with this free choice contract.
The only ones allowed to buy votes are the ones running for office.
And they are required to do it on credit.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until the
chooses 'great' - receipt disappears into ballot box
Voter chooses 'nope' - receipt disappears into trash bin /
can be taken home as a souvenir.
Since the voting booth is private, no one can see you do this,
even if it were made illegal. (And since phones can store
voting, but still make it impossible to use a camera without
being detected.
Peter
I was thinking of those boxes with viewing ports that you look into to get
your eyes tested when you renew your drivers license. You could have those
out in the open, that way you'd have the privacy (only turn
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 03:26:18PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
(I fully support vote buying and selling, needless to say. Simple right
to make a contract.)
What's your take on this situation, then:
BOSS: Get in that booth and vote Kennedy or I'll fire you. Take this
expensive camera with
has been checked.
I realize you big city types (yes, Tim, Corralitos is big compared to
my
little burg) have full scale voting booths with curtains (I used the
big
mechanical machines when I lived in Manhatten), but out here in the
sticks,
the 'voting booth' is a little standing desk affair
of vote buying consistent with rejection of Democracy?
Liberty is characterized in the .sig below:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
-- Ben Franklin
receipts)
Oh, and by the way, these are the only kind of electronic voting machines
approved, so far, in Mass.
Miles Fidelman
**
The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618
Miles R. Fidelman, President
Miles Fidelman wrote:
- option for a quick and dirty recount by feeding the ballots through
a different counting machine (maybe with different software, from a
different vendor)
or indeed constructing said machines so they *assume* they will be feeding
another machine in a chain (so every party
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Dave Howe wrote:
Miles Fidelman wrote:
- option for a quick and dirty recount by feeding the ballots through
a different counting machine (maybe with different software, from a
different vendor)
or indeed constructing said machines so they *assume* they will be
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 09:18:42AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
On Nov 26, 2003, at 8:10 AM, BillyGOTO wrote:
I have no problem with this free choice contract.
You can't sell your vote for the same reason that Djinni don't
grant wishes for more wishes.
A silly comment. I take it you're saying
recount of the original ballots (which are
probably more legible than any machine-printed receipts)
Oh, and by the way, these are the only kind of electronic voting machines
approved, so far, in Mass.
Miles Fidelman
Indeed, thats where I live, and the tech we use. It pretty much fits
all
Cameras in the voting booth? Jesus Christ, you guys are morons. If you
want to sell your vote, just vote absentee. The ward guy will even stamp
and mail it for you. Happens every election.
Doesn't make sense.
Votes are already bought and sold, but there's so many middle men taking
their cuts in the form of military bases or whatnot that the enduser barely
gets some.
-TD
From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: e voting (receipts, votebuying, brinworld
On Nov 24, 2003, at 8:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 11/24/2003 11:12:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I expect there may be some good solutions to this issue, but I haven't
yet seen them discussed here or on other fora I run across.
What part of I
In a message dated 11/24/2003 11:12:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I expect there may be some good solutions to this issue, but I haven't
yet seen them discussed here or on other fora I run across.
Like what?
Regards, Matt-
At 2:30 PM -0800 11/24/03, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
At 01:04 PM 11/24/03 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
Thats not how it works. The idea is that you make your choices on
the machine, and when you lock them in, two things happen: They
are electronically recorded in the device for the normal count, and
You might check out David Chaum's latest solution at
http://www.vreceipt.com/, there are more details in the whitepaper:
http://www.vreceipt.com/article.pdf
That is irrelevant. Whatever the solution is it must be understandable and
verifiable by the Standard high school dropout. Also, the
At 8:04 PM -0800 11/24/03, Tim May wrote:
I expect there may be some good solutions to this issue, but I haven't
yet seen them discussed here or on other fora I run across. And since
encouraging the democrats has never been a priority for me, I haven't
spent much time worrying about how to improve
On Nov 24, 2003, at 3:52 PM, Bill Frantz wrote:
At 2:30 PM -0800 11/24/03, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
At 01:04 PM 11/24/03 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
Thats not how it works. The idea is that you make your choices on
the machine, and when you lock them in, two things happen: They
are electronically
a picture of your
face adjacent to the committed receipt, even if you can't touch it.
Since the voting booth is private, no one can see you do this,
even if it were made illegal. (And since phones can store images,
jamming the transmission at the booth doesn't work.)
You send your picture from
a short time,
certainly long before any of the receipt electronic voting systems
are widely deployed.
(e.g., this article at
http://www.what-cellphone.com/articles/200305/
200305_Easy_Snapping.php)
But the resolution of today's very inexpensive digital cameras, and
probably those
big city types (yes, Tim, Corralitos is big compared to my
little burg) have full scale voting booths with curtains (I used the big
mechanical machines when I lived in Manhatten), but out here in the sticks,
the 'voting booth' is a little standing desk affair with 18 inch privacy
shields on 3 sides
cubic-dog [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Major Variola (ret.) wrote:
Secretary of State Kevin Shelley is expected to announce today that as
of 2006, all electronic voting machines in California must be able to
produce a paper printout that voters can check to make sure
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Major Variola (ret.) wrote:
Secretary of State Kevin Shelley is expected to announce today that as
of 2006, all electronic voting machines in California must be able to
produce a paper printout that voters can check to make sure their votes
are properly recorded.
Great
On Nov 24, 2003, at 9:51 AM, cubic-dog wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Major Variola (ret.) wrote:
Secretary of State Kevin Shelley is expected to announce today that as
of 2006, all electronic voting machines in California must be able to
produce a paper printout that voters can check to make sure
At 9:19 AM -0800 11/21/03, Tim May wrote:
On Nov 21, 2003, at 8:16 AM, Major Variola (ret.) wrote:
Secretary of State Kevin Shelley is expected to announce today that as
of 2006, all electronic voting machines in California must be able to
produce a paper printout that voters can check to make
Message-
From: Roy M. Silvernail [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 12:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: e voting
On Friday 21 November 2003 12:19, Tim May wrote:
On Nov 21, 2003, at 8:16 AM, Major Variola (ret.) wrote:
Secretary of State Kevin Shelley is expected
On Friday 21 November 2003 12:19, Tim May wrote:
On Nov 21, 2003, at 8:16 AM, Major Variola (ret.) wrote:
Secretary of State Kevin Shelley is expected to announce today that as
of 2006, all electronic voting machines in California must be able to
produce a paper printout that voters can
- but
instead, is deposited in a conventional voting box for use in recounts.
Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(I bought _one_ lottery ticket, for $1, just to see how the numbers were
done. Lotteries are of course a tax on the gullible and stupid.)
A friend of mine likes to say that lotteries are a tax on stupidity: The
dumber you are, the more tax you have to pay.
On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 04:06 AM, Peter Gutmann wrote:
Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(I bought _one_ lottery ticket, for $1, just to see how the numbers
were
done. Lotteries are of course a tax on the gullible and stupid.)
A friend of mine likes to say that lotteries are a tax on
Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Currently voting is trusted because political adversaries supervise the
process.
Previously the mechanics were, well, mechanical, ie, open for
inspection.
That really is worth saying more often.
If we here can't agree on how to make machine voting both robust
Variola (ret); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Chaumian blinding public voting?
On Friday 31 October 2003 12:10 pm, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Is is possible to use blinding (or other protocols) so that all votes
are published, you can check that your vote is in there, and you
(or anyone) can run
On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 02:44 AM, ken wrote:
Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Currently voting is trusted because political adversaries supervise
the
process.
Previously the mechanics were, well, mechanical, ie, open for
inspection.
That really is worth saying more often.
If we here can't
On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 02:44 AM, ken wrote:
If we here can't agree on how to make machine voting both robust and
private, then EVEN IF A PERFECT SYSTEM COULD BE DESIGNED it is
extremely unlikely that a large number of people could be persuaded
that it /was/ perfect.
So if public
On Friday 31 October 2003 10:55 pm, Tim May wrote:
.. (Standard Tim May Anyone who doesn't agree with me deserves to die a
horrible death rant) ...
--Tim May
I figured that was coming.
Chuckle.
--
Neil Johnson
http://www.njohnsn.com
PGP key available on request.
in the paper. The voter could check to see if their vote had been
altered.
I still think far better methods for improving voter turn out other than
Internet voting are:
1. A National Election Holiday (but in the middle of the work week so people
can't use it to extend a vacation).
2. Couple
On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 23:55, Tim May wrote:
Increasing voter turnout is, of course, a Bad Thing. For the reasons we
discuss so often.
Agreed. To the extent that I want a government at all, I support a
constitutional republic, not a democracy. Legions of bleary-eyed,
TV-addled, bigoted
to furriners: in the US you don't
need
ID to register or to vote, just a signature, and for that an X
suffices.]
Although I *do* agree with you --resistance to votebuying is a desirable
feature
if you can have it. (Insert cellphone-with-camera-in-voting-booth
discussion here.)
(And yes, voting at home
is in there, and you
(or anyone) can run the maths and verify the vote? Without being
able to link people to votes without their consent.
Currently voting is trusted because political adversaries supervise the
process.
Previously the mechanics were, well, mechanical, ie, open for
inspection
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Tim May wrote:
Or should we just add 20 of the remaining 30 list subscribers here to
the list of 25 million in these united states who need to be sent up
the chimneys? Works for me.
Do we actually have 30 subscribers left?
--
Yours,
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
a MAC of their ballot and then
print the
MAC's in the paper. The voter could check to see if their vote had been
altered.
I still think far better methods for improving voter turn out other
than
Internet voting are:
1. A National Election Holiday (but in the middle of the work week so
people
Is is possible to use blinding (or other protocols) so that all votes
are published, you can check that your vote is in there, and you
(or anyone) can run the maths and verify the vote? Without being
able to link people to votes without their consent.
Currently voting is trusted because
Appropos voting: a very disturbing article is here:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=11811
-
Who plans to steal the 2004 US elections?
Some people have it figured out
By Egan Orion: Monday 29 September 2003, 06
://www.cryptonomicon.net/
modules.php?name=Newsfile=printsid=463
Cryptonomicon.Net -
Talk: Analysis of an Electronic Voting System
Someone needs to inject a story about e-voting fraud into the popular
imagination.
Is Tom Clancy available? Maybe an anonymous, detailed, plausible,
(but
secretly fictional
Cryptonomicon.Net -
Talk: Analysis of an Electronic Voting System
Someone needs to inject a story about e-voting fraud into the popular
imagination.
Is Tom Clancy available? Maybe an anonymous, detailed, plausible,
(but
secretly fictional)
blog describing how someone did this in their podunk
At 02:48 PM 9/24/03 -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
http://www.cryptonomicon.net/modules.php?name=Newsfile=printsid=463
Cryptonomicon.Net -
Talk: Analysis of an Electronic Voting System
Someone needs to inject a story about e-voting fraud into the popular
imagination.
Is Tom Clancy available
On Thursday 25 September 2003 12:46, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Someone needs to inject a story about e-voting fraud into the popular
imagination.
Is Tom Clancy available? Maybe an anonymous, detailed, plausible, (but
secretly fictional)
blog describing how someone did this in their podunk
stealdemocracy.com, a new voting machine
company. Sell machines that explicitly let you steal elections. Get
some press.
Adam
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:08:38AM -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
| Notice they did this to Chaum, too...
|
| Cheers,
| RAH
|
| --- begin forwarded text
|
|
| Status: U
Some effort should be made to communicate the danger of e-ballots to the
various grassroots, political organizations interested in voting issues. We really
have to get a wider audience made aware of the tremendous danger.
And somebody should work on producing an alternative hybrid voting
list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 23:31:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [johnmacsgroup] Computer Voting Expert, Dr. Rebecca Mercuri, Ousted From
Elections
Conference
Computer Voting Expert Ousted From Elections Conference
Lynn Landes
freelance journalist
www.EcoTalk.org
Denver CO Aug 1 - Dr
In a message dated 8/6/2003 12:51:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Having Mercuri and Chaum ejected is the best thing that could have
happened.
Absolutely correct..You should try to think up ways to get them to be even
more hostile to them.
Regards, Matt-
, I know, as our
| democracy gets replaced by a kleptocracy, but what can you do?
|
| Maybe she should set up stealdemocracy.com, a new voting machine
| company. Sell machines that explicitly let you steal elections. Get
| some press.
|
| A better solution, already available to voters
Here's another one.
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 12:20:30PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
At 09:46 2003-08-06 -0700, Tim May wrote:
I was intensely opposed to the gibberish about how the Republicans stole
the Florida vote, for multiple reasons. First, the Dems wanted to change
the rules after
At 1:56 PM -0400 8/6/03, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
cannot prevent
-3 negative miscount
can prevent of course. Maybe I should apply for a job as a school superintendent...
Cheers,
RAH
--
-
R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation
by a kleptocracy, but what can you do?
Maybe she should set up stealdemocracy.com, a new voting machine
company. Sell machines that explicitly let you steal elections. Get
some press.
It's a meme we might want to spread: They stole the election.
(They)
I was intensely opposed to the gibberish about how
At 05:48 PM 8/6/03 -0400, Adam Shostack wrote:
Huh? Voters don't control the security of the voting system any more
than we control the security of the credit rating/id theft system.
The only way to show vote fraud would be to get enough voters to
document
that the State lied. That would depend
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And somebody should work on producing an alternative hybrid voting
machine that is hard copy paper verifiable. I think we have to give
these local governments a viable alternative, a machine that can't be
used for Machiavellian machinations.
I
Why is it people are not using normal quoting procedure lately? This is at
least the third message today I've seen like this -- no way to tell who said
what.
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 12:58:06PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 8/6/2003 12:51:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
or (as it is oftentimes neglected)
the machine
made an error in printing the vote.
Or more probably, as seen in the american case - the user didn't
understand the interface and voted wrongly. of course, you could avoid
this by stating that the voting software displays the vote and gives a
yes/no choice
authority
responsible for certifying voting machines and the U.S. General Accounting
Office. He claims the firing was clearly in retaliation for
whistleblowing.
Although more than a year and a half has passed since he lost his job,
Spillane said he decided to file the suit because he believed
96 matches
Mail list logo
