Is pro-VVAT in the same category as anti-MMR?

RainyDay

I guess it is just soooo much easier to make wild generalisations about McDowell's wild generalisations than to answer the serious questions like;

- Show the backup for your claim that the CEV said that system would work
- provide the basis for your conclusion that the anti-eVoting movement "opposes virtually all existing electronic systems"?
- Please provide your source for the 98% figure ("paper which at best is only 98% accurate")

And you imply McDowell is making claims without evidence? Pot, kettle, black.....

williamgrogan

So please clarify - are you still claiming that the CEV said (& I mean 'said', not 'implied' or 'suggested' or anything else) that the system would work. You have failed to produce any evidence from the CEV report to support this claim

Unfortunately I have to repeat myself but, if John tells me he went to the city on his bicycle and if tell Mick that John told me he cycled to the city am I not accurate? I don’t have to use the exact same words. The CEV said,

..testing carried out by experts retained by the Commission on a significant sample of the voting machines deployed to returning officers confirms that the system can accurately and consistently record voter preferences

What tense is “can” above? They could have said “did”. Does “can” not indicate an ongoing statement that it can consistently record the votes? Therefore, can we not take this as meaning that if they did new tests tomorrow that they now expect that it will work again and therefore at an election?

The CEV shelved (note not dismissed) eVoting for reasons other than it did not work. In fact they said as much, they said, “The Commission wishes to emphasise (WG my emphasis) that its conclusion is not based on any finding that the system will not work,”. When I asked RD what this meant he simply said, “it means what it means”.

The following paragraph in the report confirmed that the counting functions worked with the votes recorded during the pilot run.

The next one again that the “counting software” passed its tests.

In fact I just noticed a sentence I missed, that “miniature end-to-end testing of the system carried out by experts retained by the Commission confirms that it can accurately record and count the votes in the context of multiple simultaneous elections;”.

I don’t know what the word “miniature” means here but this sentence says that it did pass end to end testing. I’m amazed I missed that one.

You simply ignore any views coming from the left, or from the US, or from Joe Duffy for no good reason other than your own personal prejudices

I’m glad to see that you finally agree with me that my suggestion that people decide things on other than the facts is correct.

It is more accurate than paper which at best is only 98% accurate

I have already explained where this figure comes from. This is the number of known spoiled votes, i.e. the ones discarded as invalid, e.g. 1,1,2,3,4 and with no officials stamp etc plus the number of spoiled votes of the type, 1,2,3,3,4,5,6 where the 1 & 2 were used but then the remaining and perhaps most important votes could not be used. It is an estimate because no one knows how many of these there are, there may be even more, perhaps much more. These errors or perhaps better phrased as loss of votes would be eliminated by eVoting as it validates the voters selection.

the anti-eVoting movement "opposes virtually all existing electronic systems

Other than an Australian system, that in fact does not have VVAT, I do not know of any available system that the anti-eVoting people support. In fact, I used the word virtually in case there was even one.

I am again reminded of the anti-MMR lobby who are now claiming that Crohn’s disease is caused by MMR vaccine. After that’s eliminated no doubt they will find something else.

Those that oppose the Nedap system have described it as a very poor system and said it was a “kludged system”, and “this very imperfect system”. It’s amazing that the CEV described it “as easy to use”, it passed all its professionally carried out tests “using a large number of sample data sets” plus the pilot run. I would expect it to have failed if it was that bad, but then I don’t think it is.

Regarding Luas, I simply made the point some days ago that this new “system” will have faults and will in fact injure and kill people but that we accept it warts and all just like we accept all other imperfect human creations, unless of course they trigger Luddism.

RainyDay

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Unfortunately I have to repeat myself but, if John tells me he went to the city on his bicycle and if tell Mick that John told me he cycled to the city am I not accurate? I don’t have to use the exact same words.

Correct - no arguement here. But to use your analogy, this doesn't mean that John will cycle into the city tomorrow. You have made a prediction regarding the future workings of the system. The CEV made no such prediction. As you mention yourself, the CEV report "means what it means", no more, no less. If you place any value on evidential debate, you will withdraw your claim.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The CEV shelved (note not dismissed) eVoting for reasons other than it did not work. In fact they said as much, they said, “The Commission wishes to emphasise (WG my emphasis) that its conclusion is not based on any finding that the system will not work,”. When I asked RD what this meant he simply said, “it means what it means”.

The following paragraph in the report confirmed that the counting functions worked with the votes recorded during the pilot run.

The next one again that the “counting software” passed its tests.

In fact I just noticed a sentence I missed, that “miniature end-to-end testing of the system carried out by experts retained by the Commission confirms that it can accurately record and count the votes in the context of multiple simultaneous elections;”.

I don’t know what the word “miniature” means here but this sentence says that it did pass end to end testing. I’m amazed I missed that one.

Your quotes from the CEV report are selective. Why don't you include the bits about the bug found in the count software, the ease with which they broke into the 'security-hardened' PC's, the criticism of the insufficent end-to-end testing, the impact of the absence of VVAT on the amount of testing required etc etc etc. The CEV recommended not using the system for the June elections. No amount of selective quotations will change this.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I have already explained where this figure comes from. This is the number of known spoiled votes, i.e. the ones discarded as invalid, e.g. 1,1,2,3,4 and with no officials stamp etc plus the number of spoiled votes of the type, 1,2,3,3,4,5,6 where the 1 & 2 were used but then the remaining and perhaps most important votes could not be used. It is an estimate because no one knows how many of these there are, there may be even more, perhaps much more. These errors or perhaps better phrased as loss of votes would be eliminated by eVoting as it validates the voters selection.

Have you no shame? So you 'forget' to mention when you quoted this figure earlier that it is an 'estimate'? Whose estimate is this - yours? And of course, the logical corrolory of your point that 'no one knows how many of these there are' is not only there may be more (much more), it also means that there may be less, much less. You quote a 98% figure which turns out to be nothing more than an off-the-cuff guess! Pretty embarrasing for someone who claims to value hard evidence.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Other than an Australian system, that in fact does not have VVAT, I do not know of any available system that the anti-eVoting people support. In fact, I used the word virtually in case there was even one.

This statement in no way justifies your earlier claim of "opposes virtually all existing electronic systems". Your earlier claim was not limited to eVoting. You stated that they oppose all electronic systems (which includes ATM's, TV's, Microwaves) etc. Was this not what you mean to say?

Sloppy (or no) research combined with your dangerous habit of lumping a pile of individuals together into a 'movement' results in more untruths here. See the Appendix of this document from David Dill's Verified Voting website for a list of eVoting machines that do produce a voter verified audit trail. So he is not a Luddite. He is not opposing 'all electronic systems'.

It's amazing that someone who has so little hard data has so much to say on this topic.

williamgrogan

My point about the bicycle had nothing to do with tense, I was simply pointing out that one need not use the exact same words.

No one can predict the future. The CEV could not have said that to use the Nedap system would definitely work with a 100% guarantee. No one can ever say this.

What does the commission mean by the words, "testing carried out by experts retained by the Commission on a significant sample of the voting machines deployed to returning officers confirms that the system can accurately and consistently record voter preferences”.?

They said they tested it and it worked. They didn’t say it couldn’t collect votes and count them, they said it could. This normally means that you then proceed to use it. That is why you do tests. It’s simple.

Build
!
Test
!
Pass Test? --- No ---- back to step 1
!
Yes
!
Use (in the future)

I might add that there are also tests carried out after the live elections on the equipment.

Furthermore the said that the reason they suggested shelving it had nothing to do with any findings of failure in the system, it was for other reasons, primarily time constraints which have nothing whatsoever to do with Nedap or VVAT for that matter. The shortage of time was mentioned repeatedly.

It is extraordinary to realise that in the report the commission said 13 times, THIRTEEN times, that they did not have enough time to assess the system. Nothing else is mentioned or stressed so often in the report.

I think 98% is a reasonable minimum estimate. What’s yours?

Maybe someone of a statistical bent can extrapolate from the known errors that spoil a vote to the number of errors that must occur further down the list that are not counted as spoiled votes but do not actually get used.

i.e.

If say 1% are spoiled because they are 1,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

What is the probability that this occurs

1,2,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

and

1,2,3,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

and

1,2,3,4,4,5,6,7,8,9,10

A spoiled vote is only one where the FIRST PREFERENCE is unknowable.

With a dozen candidates is it not reasonable to assume that for every error of type 1,1,2,3 … there are as many of type 1,2,3,4,4 etc..?

If that is the case then there could be a very high percentage of votes where the error means that the voter’s intention does not get counted.

I looked at the AccuPoll option on the linked to site and the printer ballot can be handled by the voter. What happens if he doesn’t put it in the ballot box? In the Mercuri method the paper vote must not be touched, this is not the case with AccuPoll. They don’t mention any existing clients just a very small test of 4,000 voters in Italy.

An important point to mention is that even the advocates of VVAT do not claim that it will eliminate fraud or error just that it will increase the reliability BY helping make it more difficult for someone to load a corrupt program and allow a sample/test/manual count of some ballots so only those eventualities have their reliability improved. So we are really talking about reducing the probability further that someone will actually do this. If the probability of trying this and achieving it are very small then a further improvement in an already small possibility is marginal.

PS

Of course I was referring to eVoting systems when I said, “…opposes virtually all existing electronic systems”. However, I wonder how many anti-eVoting people are opposed to mobile phones because they fear the radiation? High I would think. My friend with the protective crystal was opposed to eVoting and thinks mobile phones are dangerous.

RainyDay

Originally posted by williamgrogan
My point about the bicycle had nothing to do with tense, I was simply pointing out that one need not use the exact same words.

No one can predict the future. The CEV could not have said that to use the Nedap system would definitely work with a 100% guarantee. No one can ever say this.

Oh dear, I think we're now cycling round in circles. You told us earlier in the thread that the CEV said the system would work. Now you tell us that no-once can ever say that the system definitely would work with a 100% guarantee. So when you said that the CEV said that the system would work, what you really meant was that the CEV said the system would probably work x% (where X < 100) of the time - right? So why didn't you clarify this on any of the many, many posts where I've called your bluff on this? But anyway, it's a moot point - the CEV made no forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements are yours, not theirs and your pathetic attempts to attribute your personal views to the CEV are now quite embarrasing.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
What does the commission mean by the words, "testing carried out by experts retained by the Commission on a significant sample of the voting machines deployed to returning officers confirms that the system can accurately and consistently record voter preferences”.?

They meant what they said William. No more, no less. At the risk of repitition, the CEV made no forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements are yours, not theirs and your pathetic attempts to attribute your personal views to the CEV are now quite embarrasing.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
They said they tested it and it worked. They didn’t say it couldn’t collect votes and count them, they said it could. This normally means that you then proceed to use it. That is why you do tests. It’s simple.

Build
!
Test
!
Pass Test? --- No ---- back to step 1
!
Yes
!
Use (in the future)

Do they let you out of the back-room coding into the real world very often, William? It seems not - There is a huge difference between the real world and a testbed. That's why the CEV slammed the amount of end-to-end testing done by the Dept.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Furthermore the said that the reason they suggested shelving it had nothing to do with any findings of failure in the system, it was for other reasons, primarily time constraints which have nothing whatsoever to do with Nedap or VVAT for that matter. The shortage of time was mentioned repeatedly.

It is extraordinary to realise that in the report the commission said 13 times, THIRTEEN times, that they did not have enough time to assess the system. Nothing else is mentioned or stressed so often in the report.

Yet again, the salient point flies right over your head. The fact that the Dept of Environment were unable to produce evidence to the CEV that they had already completed appropriate testing is the damning criticism of all. The lads in the Dept were winging it. The CEV caught them out. And 55m of taxpayers money has been wasted as a result.

I think 98% is a reasonable minimum estimate. What’s yours?

So I'm guessing this means the 98% is your personal estimate? You slam McDowell over his LUAS complaint but you don't see anything wrong with plucking estimates out of the air with nothing to support them (other than more hot air). I don't have any estimate. I don't make up figures off the top of my head and pretend that they are relevant to the debate.

I looked at the AccuPoll option on the linked to site and the printer ballot can be handled by the voter. What happens if he doesn’t put it in the ballot box? In the Mercuri method the paper vote must not be touched, this is not the case with AccuPoll. They don’t mention any existing clients just a very small test of 4,000 voters in Italy.

Yet again, you miss the point. The purpose of my link want not to recommend any particular machines. It was to show the wild inaccuracy of your earlier allegation. But when faced with this inaccuracy, you attempt to shift the goalposts yet again. If you have any honesty, you will withdraw your allegation that those who oppose eVoting "opposes virtually all existing electronic systems". But somehow, I don't think honesty is a big priority for you in this debate.

An important point to mention is that even the advocates of VVAT do not claim that it will eliminate fraud or error just that it will increase the reliability BY helping make it more difficult for someone to load a corrupt program and allow a sample/test/manual count of some ballots so only those eventualities have their reliability improved. So we are really talking about reducing the probability further that someone will actually do this. If the probability of trying this and achieving it are very small then a further improvement in an already small possibility is marginal.

This is just bull. Availability of VVAT makes it possible to do an entire paper count in case of dispute. Without VVAT, that is not possible. That is the purpose of VVAT. Have you read very much on this topic?

williamgrogan

If I implied that I was suggesting that the CEV alone of all entities in the universe could tell the future then I withdraw that implication.

What does the commission mean by the words, "testing carried out by experts retained by the Commission on a significant sample of the voting machines deployed to returning officers confirms that the system can accurately and consistently record voter preferences”.?

Seen as you refuse the say what the word, "can", means in the above sentence, what does the word, "consistently" mean?

There is a huge difference between the real world and a testbed

"The real world"? Isn't software and hardware part of the "real world". Do you mean by this that no amount of testing of a computer program can prove that a system can be used in the "real world"?

Is your "real world" the world of pen and paper, the good old fashioned “natural” tactile world but does not include computers and electronics?

If so that would explain a lot.

PS

You slam McDowell over his LUAS complaint

I’ve no idea what you mean here, I didn’t slam McDowell over anything.??

RainyDay

Originally posted by williamgrogan
If I implied that I was suggesting that the CEV alone of all entities in the universe could tell the future then I withdraw that implication.

Stop dodging. The issue is not about the CEV's ability to foretell the future. It's about the fact that you posted an untrue statement that the CEV said the system would work. They did not say this.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Seen as you refuse the say what the word, "can", means in the above sentence, what does the word, "consistently" mean?

Yet again, they mean what they mean - no more, no less. You will not that that comment specifically refers to the voting machines ability to record votes only. It does not refer to their ability to transfer votes on the central system. It does not refer to the protection against unauthorised software on the voting machine or the central PC. It does not refer to protecting the Access DB on the central PC from attack. The fact that one individual component of this system worked successfully in a testbed environment proves little or nothing.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
"The real world"? Isn't software and hardware part of the "real world". Do you mean by this that no amount of testing of a computer program can prove that a system can be used in the "real world"?

Is your "real world" the world of pen and paper, the good old fashioned “natural” tactile world but does not include computers and electronics?

If so that would explain a lot.

Clearly, I need to come down to a greater level of detail. Software that works successfully on a testbed may not work successfully in the real world. Not because of any mythical beings, but because humans get involved - and whether by intention or by omission, they screw it up. That's the difference between a testbed & the real world.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
You slam McDowell over his LUAS complaint

I’ve no idea what you mean here, I didn’t slam McDowell over anything.??

So this post was from a different William then?

williamgrogan

Yet again, you miss the point. The purpose of my link want not to recommend any particular machines. It was to show the wild inaccuracy of your earlier allegation

My original sentence was, “Obviously pro-VVAT are opposed to virtually every system in use because none have the Mercuri cabinet”

Note the words in bold.

The first one you linked me to is not IN USE and neither is the second one as far as I can see.

It was to show the wild inaccuracy of your earlier allegation

So there are none in use then? Does this mean my only error was to say, “virtually”.

Your propensity to exaggerate knows no bounds and is only exceeded by the volume of your insults. Your insult rate is quite astonishing! I think it’s related to your frustration at not being correct.

williamgrogan

So this post was from a different William then?

Where did this William slam McDowell? I simply quoted him. In fact I have never slammed McDowell over anything.

williamgrogan

As regards the The Open Source argument for eVoting.

A long while back I said I had no problem with this but there was no such system available for the Irish Government to use. It’s only vaporware at present.

This morning I read that one company in the USA has released its propriety eVoting software to public scrutiny. However, one anti-eVoting activist said it was no use as he was not going to spend approximately 100 hours of his time unpaid to examine it and he doubted that anyone else would either.

If that’s the case who’s going to spend a few man years writing an eVoting system for Ireland?

williamgrogan

Apologies if I have broken some hackers charter and posted 4 times on the trot but...

I just (I swear to god) spotted this

The Commission has identified and acknowledged the benefits of electronic voting and the fact that the selected system can accurately and consistently record voter preferences. It emphasises that its conclusion is not based on any finding that the present system will not work, but on the desirability of allowing time for further testing and quality assurance.

electronic voting Ireland web site

The following seems to me to be a fairly detailed set of tests stretching back to early 2002. The impression one would get from the anti-eVoting lobby is that little or no tests were carried out.

Tests Reviewed

Zerflow Electronic Voting Security Assessment 27/03/02
Review 4/07/03
PTB Test Report 17/09/03*
Test Report 2 17/09/03*
Software Requirements for Voting Machines 18/03/03*
Test Report 8/09/98
TNO Test Report: Program Reading Unit Model ESI 1 28/10/03*
Test Report: Voting Machine Type ESI 2 (Standards IEC 60839-1-2, etc) 30/06/03*
Test Report: Voting Machine Type ESI 2 (Standards IEC 60839-1-3) 29/10/03*
Test Report: Voting Machine Model PRU (Standards EN 50082-2, etc) 6/08/03*
Test Report: Voting Machine Model PRU (Standards IEC 60068-2, etc) 8/08/03*
KEMA Certificate No. 2028725.01 issued to NEDAP 20/6/03*
ERS Software Validation Report, 15/12/03*
Report of 22/03/04*
Nathean Code Review of IES Build 0111 23/12/03*
Architectural Assessment and Code Review of IES for use at June 2004 Elections 23/12/03*
Code Review of IES Build 132 – Election Setup and Maintenance 20/04/04*
Code Review of IES Build 132 – Vote Reader 20/04/04*
Code Review of IES Build 132 – Irish Election Processing 20/04/04*
Bureau Veritas Report on Evaluation of Nedap machine 2/02/04
PMI Code review 14/12/01
Database Evaluation 14/12/01
Development Environment 14/12/01
Guidelines for Review 14/12/01
Pseudo Code Reference 14/12/01
Random Numbers 14/12/01

RainyDay

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Where did this William slam McDowell? I simply quoted him. In fact I have never slammed McDowell over anything.

Untrue (yet again). You quoted him and added in your sarcastic, snide comment "Sounds like we need to shelve it, lets face it a human life is worth more than an election and we shelved eVoting without any evidence of immanent failure, especially that now that we are in a new era where a large proportion of the population think that very small risks are unacceptable."

Originally posted by williamgrogan
My original sentence was, “Obviously pro-VVAT are opposed to virtually every system in use because none have the Mercuri cabinet”

Note the words in bold.

So now you have taken to rewriting history. That is not the sentence that I objected to. The sentence that I objected to (hint:it's the sentance in the quote section above my comments) was "an anti-eVoting movement on the internet. A movement that opposes virtually all existing electronic systems". This is yet another of your wild allegations which you are incapable of supporting when questioned.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The first one you linked me to is not IN USE and neither is the second one as far as I can see.

So there are none in use then? Does this mean my only error was to say, “virtually”.

Whether they are in use or not is of no relevance. The relevance of this link was to demonstrate the obvious error in your statement that the eVoting movement opposes virtually all existing electronic systems. This was yet another wild generalisation for which you have produced no supporting data.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
This morning I read that one company in the USA has released its propriety eVoting software to public scrutiny. However, one anti-eVoting activist said it was no use as he was not going to spend approximately 100 hours of his time unpaid to examine it and he doubted that anyone else would either.

If that’s the case who’s going to spend a few man years writing an eVoting system for Ireland?

OK - Now I understand the basis for your opinions - Because one activist in the USA makes a comment, you immediately jump to the conclusion that his view represents ALL of those people in Ireland who are concerned about eVoting? Get real, William.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I just (I swear to god) spotted this

electronic voting Ireland web site

The following seems to me to be a fairly detailed set of tests stretching back to early 2002. The impression one would get from the anti-eVoting lobby is that little or no tests were carried out.

Tests Reviewed

So we've been discussion this topic for months now and you've just discovered the test reports now, and you haven't actually read them. You've been pontificating here about the level of testing required but you haven't actually read the test reports, and you assume that because there is a big long list of reports, that the testing must have been good?

Can I get a job working for you, William? I can produce long lists of all the things I've done each day & you can pay me lots of money. But please don't actually read any of them - because when you do, it might not be quite as impressive as the list.

This may come as a surprise, but most of those people grouped around ICTE spent most of last year reviewing these reports in fine detail. We've dragged further reports out of the Dept (end-to-end test results) when they were obviously too embarrassed to publish these (given the almost childlike nature of the testing carried out). Do us all a favour - go read the test reports and come back and discuss the topic when you actually know enough about it to speak competently.

williamgrogan

Untrue (yet again). You quoted him and added in your sarcastic, snide comment

"Sounds like we need to shelve it, lets face it a human life is worth more than an election and we shelved eVoting without any evidence of immanent failure, especially that now that we are in a new era where a large proportion of the population think that very small risks are unacceptable

I most certainly was not “slamming” McDowell. In fact I was not referring to McDowell at all except that he was stating that people could be killed by the Luas. Which I had already said some days ago myself in this thread. If anything I was agreeing with him.

My point, and I do think its obvious, is that no system including eVoting is 100% reliable and neither is the Luas and will cause some problems BUT we still go ahead with them. When I originally made this point about Luas it was the day BEFORE the Luas accident. I have made this point before, that following the CEV logic, Luas should be shelved.

A movement that opposes virtually all existing electronic systems". This is yet another of your wild allegations which you are incapable of supporting when questioned

Actually this is another of your wild exaggerations that miss the point I was making. You originally incorrectly interpreted this as meaning that I suggested that anti-eVoting people opposed toasters & electric toothbrushes.

Lets re-phrase and see where we get.

The pro-VVAT people are opposed to all existing eVoting systems certainly all that are in use, so by default they are opposed to e-Voting. Furthermore they then go on to oppose the one picked by the government and claim it’s a pile of rubbish but because they oppose every other one to they are discredited. To put it another way, if you claim that all cars are bad and then you claim that Fords are bad then your option of FORDS is of little interest. Or perhaps closer to my heart, if someone tells me they hate red wine and that they think a particular Premier Cru Burgundy is sh1t then I am inclined to ignore their opinion.

Furthermore I have also pointed out than when someone is opposed to a concept that they will then oppose any manifestation of that concept. Anti eVoting people oppose eVoting, pro-VVAT oppose eVoting UNLESS it also incorporates the paper and manual counting element which makes it as useless as a car preceded by a man with a flag.

The anti-vaccination lobby who think its natural and therefore presumably good to die from Measles, oppose MMR because it’s a vaccine and not actually because it’s the MMR vaccine. The anti-Nedap/Powervote people are no different.

So we've been discussion this topic for months now and you've just discovered the test reports now, and you haven't actually read them

I don’t know if you are doing this on purpose or just diving in without switching on your brain but I was not referring to having just discovered the tests but the current electronic voting web site opening page where they have a summary of the points I have been making.

i.e.

___start_________________________________________________________________

I just (I swear to god) spotted this

The Commission has identified and acknowledged the benefits of electronic voting and the fact that the selected system can accurately and consistently record voter preferences. It emphasises that its conclusion is not based on any finding that the present system will not work, but on the desirability of allowing time for further testing and quality assurance.

electronic voting Ireland web site

__end__________________________________________________________________


The CEV appointed experts made no major criticism of the tests already done and did ones themselves, including end to end tests with large volumes of data which the anti-eVoting lobby have dismissed as well even thought they showed no problems.

This is despite the fact that any computer system can be improved and if you keep testing and prodding and poking you will eventually find something wrong no matter how trivial which you can then exaggerate out of all proportion.

The Nedap system passed the tests. If it passes a reasonable set of tests it should be used.

OK - Now I understand the basis for your opinions - Because one activist in the USA makes a comment, you immediately jump to the conclusion that his view represents ALL of those people in Ireland who are concerned about eVoting? Get real, William.

Its not that he might be the only person holding this opinion that is relevant. He raises a good point. What competent people are going to write 200,000 lines of a system for Ireland for nothing? Why haven’t they already? Why didn’t they do it years ago and pre-empt the government? Why didn’t they make it a fait complet?

Maybe because they are really just anti-eVoting whether its using Open Source or not just like Rebecca Mercuri.

Go on write an Open Source Irish election system and stop spending your time arguing with me. Maybe Nedap will buy it off you.

RainyDay

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Actually this is another of your wild exaggerations that miss the point I was making. You originally incorrectly interpreted this as meaning that I suggested that anti-eVoting people opposed toasters & electric toothbrushes.

Look at the words you used, William - "A movement that opposes virtually all existing electronic systems" There was nothing wrong with my interpretation. The problem was with your words, where you forgot to qualify it to restrict it to eVoting equipment.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The pro-VVAT people are opposed to all existing eVoting systems certainly all that are in use, so by default they are opposed to e-Voting. Furthermore they then go on to oppose the one picked by the government and claim it’s a pile of rubbish but because they oppose every other one to they are discredited. To put it another way, if you claim that all cars are bad and then you claim that Fords are bad then your option of FORDS is of little interest. Or perhaps closer to my heart, if someone tells me they hate red wine and that they think a particular Premier Cru Burgundy is sh1t then I am inclined to ignore their opinion.

Your car/wine analogies are not relevant. eVoting is a new emerging technology which gets to pick Goverments and has a fairly dodgy track record. Cars/Wine do not get to pick Governments. These have different requirements.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Furthermore I have also pointed out than when someone is opposed to a concept that they will then oppose any manifestation of that concept. Anti eVoting people oppose eVoting, pro-VVAT oppose eVoting UNLESS it also incorporates the paper and manual counting element which makes it as useless as a car preceded by a man with a flag

You can keep repeating this stuff ad nauseum William, but that doesn't make it anything more than your prejudiced opinion. You have failed to provide any backup for these points (apart from the ones you tried to make up on the spot until challenged). People are individuals, and have very different views on all these topics. Try cleaning out your odd-sized ear canals and listening for a change - you might actually learn something?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I don’t know if you are doing this on purpose or just diving in without switching on your brain but I was not referring to having just discovered the tests but the current electronic voting web site opening page where they have a summary of the points I have been making.

OK - so we've established that your views are in line with the Dept's spin-doctors pathetic attempts at damage limitation. Is that supposed to have some signficance? Given their track record on this project, aligning yourself with the Dept doesn't do a lot for your credibility.

But tell us, how many of the list of test reports have you studied? Any views on them?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The CEV appointed experts made no major criticism of the tests already done

Pure fiction. Have you actually read the CEV report? Seriously, you think there were 'no major criticisms'? How about any of the following;

- As changes are made to the system, each new software version needs to be reviewed and tested in full before it can be relied upon for use in real elections.
- The fact that new versions of the software continue to be issued in the run-up to the June elections is unsatisfactory - There is not sufficient time before the June elections for full testing of the final version of the software which would be essential before the software could be run in these elections;
- Some components of the system have not been tested, in particular those at the interface between tested components;
- There has been very limited “end-to-end” testing of the full system in its entirety as it would run in June, and none has been carried out independently:
- There has been no parallel testing of the system in a real election, either against the traditional manual system of voting or against an alternative electronic means; such parallel testing is very important for such a critical system as voting at elections:
- Certain of the tests performed at the request of the Commission identified an error in the count software which could lead to incorrect distributions of surpluses;

You can't get more more 'major criticism' than that.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
and did ones themselves, including end to end tests with large volumes of data which the anti-eVoting lobby have dismissed as well even thought they showed no problems.

Where did you get your 'large volumes of data' from? The CEV commisioned 'Miniature end-to-end testing '. Now maybe I'm funny, but I always thought 'Miniature' referred to something small, not something large? How did you come up with 'large'? Is this another myth you've just invented?

And in case you missed the CEV's criticism of the Dept's end-to-end testing, I'll repeat it again;

- There has been very limited “end-to-end” testing of the full system in its entirety as it would run in June, and none has been carried out independently:

Originally posted by williamgrogan
This is despite the fact that any computer system can be improved and if you keep testing and prodding and poking you will eventually find something wrong no matter how trivial which you can then exaggerate out of all proportion.

As explained earlier in the thread, an eVoting system is not like any other computer application which requires ongoing upgrades/fixes/enhancements. The requirements for the eVoting system are laid down in legislation. The only time there should be any new version/fix/enhancement is when the legislation changes. The appearance of frequent other upgrades/fixes/enhancements indicates that the software never worked in the first place.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Go on write an Open Source Irish election system and stop spending your time arguing with me. Maybe Nedap will buy it off you.

Ooohh who's getting tetchy now? Didn't you have your afternoon nap?

Are you hankering for the old days when you could just make up 'facts' about eVoting to suit your argument and not have to prove their validity?

When you stop posting fiction, I'll stop argueing. Otherwise this thread is going to continue until one of us dies.

williamgrogan

Your car/wine analogies are not relevant. eVoting is a new emerging technology which gets to pick Goverments and has a fairly dodgy track record. Cars/Wine do not get to pick Governments. These have different requirements.

It is not just an analogy. If someone opposes all existing eVoting systems and then also opposes a particular one, you could be forgiven for assuming that they are guilty of crying wolf. It doesn’t matter what the particular thing they are criticising is. The logic is the same.

Some of the founders of the VVAT movement are opposed to all eVoting systems.

Someone opposed to vaccines is going to look for problems, real or not and exaggerate them for all proposed vaccines, ditto the anti-eVoting lobby.

Going on the track record of the anti-eVoting lobby in the states and the track record of the anti-eVoting web sites, if Nedap works to the satisfaction of the CEV, it is obvious that all problems are going to have to be exaggerated by the Irish anti-eVoting lobby to stop it going ahead. This is the nub of the matter and is the biggest comparison with the anti-MMR brigade. No actual evidence of a serious problem so invent them and exaggerate any even vaguely related incidence.

There have been or will shortly be a billion votes cast by eVoting systems and as of today I know of not a single candidate that lost a seat because of problems. On the other hand there must be people losing their seats because of the lack of validation in manual systems, Al Gore could even be one of them.

Most of the problems reported by the anti-eVoting lobby that I have looked into are not actual problems at all such as the loss of two seats to Republicans in the states last year, under-votes caused by people not voting when they discovered no candidate for their party on the ballot as in Florida or else problems that had nothing to do with the actual recording & counting of votes. I am still waiting on the two TDs to refute the daft claims they made in the Dail. Their supporters dodged that issue on this thread some weeks back.

I keep seeing sentences such as, “the many errors caused by eVoting” but no actual evidence to support this statement. Of course this is the exact same thing that happened with the anti-MMR lobby, anecdotal evidence that when examined fell apart.

As changes are made to the system, each new software version needs to be reviewed and tested in full before it can be relied upon for use in real elections.

How is this a major criticism? It’s not even a fault.

I have already said that systems can and do go live without end-to-end testing. Cassini did OK, didn’t it? But of course that’s a 3 billion dollar spaceship as you so wisely pointed out.

Most parallel tests of computer systems generally just throw up problems in the manual systems as I am sure such a test with eVoting would also do.

As regards the other points we don’t as yet have the details so lets wait and see. For example I do not know why they are still changing the software, your statement that is to fix bugs is just an assumption.

RainyDay

Originally posted by williamgrogan
It is not just an analogy. If someone opposes all existing eVoting systems and then also opposes a particular one, you could be forgiven for assuming that they are guilty of crying wolf. It doesn’t matter what the particular thing they are criticising is. The logic is the same.

It is only 'crying wolf' if you can don't actually listen to the substance of their arguement. Personally, I don't have any principled objection to a decent eVoting system with VVAT, but I do have a huge question about the value-for-money. Is this really a priority area for Govt spending? How much of a reduction in spoilt votes could be achieved via a 5million education campaign, instead of a 55million IT solution?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Some of the founders of the VVAT movement are opposed to all eVoting systems.

Specifically who are you referring to here? Name names. But even if you are right, this does not negate the serious and genuine objections made regarding the Nedap/Powervote system for Ireland.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Going on the track record of the anti-eVoting lobby in the states and the track record of the anti-eVoting web sites, if Nedap works to the satisfaction of the CEV, it is obvious that all problems are going to have to be exaggerated by the Irish anti-eVoting lobby to stop it going ahead. This is the nub of the matter and is the biggest comparison with the anti-MMR brigade. No actual evidence of a serious problem so invent them and exaggerate any even vaguely related incidence.

Unfortunately, the problems with the Nedap/Powervote system are so glaringly obvious to anyone who has actually researched the system, no exaggeration is or will be required. But you don't really expect us to take your criticisms of exaggeration seriously, given your propensity for making up (i.e. 98% accuracy) evidence to suit your purpose, do you?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
There have been or will shortly be a billion votes cast by eVoting systems and as of today I know of not a single candidate that lost a seat because of problems.

Again, it appears that one of the major concerns about eVoting without VVAT has gone right over your head, so let me spell it out. If/when problems occur, no-one will know about it - because there is no audit trail. So the candidate won't know, the returning officer wont know, the press wont know, you & I wont know. We will never know what problems have occured.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
On the other hand there must be people losing their seats because of the lack of validation in manual systems, Al Gore could even be one of them.

Again, some evidence of what 'must' be happening would be nice. Gore's loss in Florida had more to do with the ethnic cleansing of the register before the election than any hanging chad problems.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I keep seeing sentences such as, “the many errors caused by eVoting” but no actual evidence to support this statement. Of course this is the exact same thing that happened with the anti-MMR lobby, anecdotal evidence that when examined fell apart.

Don't you see the irony of your criticisms of lack of non-anectodal evidence coming just a few lines after your own little nugget "On the other hand there must be people losing their seats" - This is a classic criticism with no evidence to support it. Get your own house in order before you start criticising others.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
How is this a major criticism? It’s not even a fault.

You are correct of course. It's not a criticism - it's just a statement. The specific criticism is the fact that the version of the software intended for use in the June elections didn't exist in April when the CEV went looking for it. Vapourware.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I have already said that systems can and do go live without end-to-end testing. Cassini did OK, didn’t it? But of course that’s a 3 billion dollar spaceship as you so wisely pointed out.

I've explained earlier in the thread why spaceships are different to eVoting systems. Go back & read it again if it hasn't sunk in.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Most parallel tests of computer systems generally just throw up problems in the manual systems as I am sure such a test with eVoting would also do.

Oh well, once William is sure that there are no problems in the eVoting system, then we should all be happy to go ahead. If one of your developers tells you he is completely happy with his latest deliverable, do you drop all your testing?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
As regards the other points we don’t as yet have the details so lets wait and see. For example I do not know why they are still changing the software, your statement that is to fix bugs is just an assumption.

Actually, we do have a lot of the details. The the multiple software releases are bug-fixes. I've seen the release notes which Joe McCarthy dragged out the Dept under FOI. They were still fixing bugs up to early this year. You really should do some basic research before coming out with these broad, erronous generalisations.


Are you forgetting to explain to us where you got the 'end to end tests with large volumes of data' in your earlier post? Are you forgetting to tell us how many of the test reports you have actually reviewed?

williamgrogan

Specifically who are you referring to here? Name names

Peter Neumann, specifically, opposes eVoting. “Rebecca Mercuri also opposes the idea of Internet voting”. Neumann has described Internet voting as “madness”, yet we now use the Internet for billions of dollars worth of commerce. I’m not saying its easy, but madness?

Again the point here is that these people effectively oppose eVoting by making it so difficult that its impractical. eVoting is a trivial computer problem, they try to raise it to theoretical perfection which is impossible.

I think 98% is a reasonable estimate. I already went into some detail on this. If someone wants to calculate a better estimate then I’m all ears. The figure itself will vary from election to election anyway. The exact figure is not important, what is important is that the present system is inaccurate and must result in some candidates being incorrectly elected because whatever the % is it is often far greater than the winning margins. How can you possibly deny or ask me to prove something so obvious? Are you seriously suggesting that when candidates have won by a handful of votes that the loss of say hundreds of votes due to the lack of validation has never resulted in a different outcome? Come on, be somewhat reasonable.

As a side issue, I certainly think that the randomness re allocating surpluses is daft and that should have been done properly.

If/when problems occur, no-one will know about it - because there is no audit trail.

This statement is simply wrong. Its touted around the place but its incorrect.

There are many ways that we would know if something had gone wrong. For example we know that there never has been a problem where a leading candidate got no votes which would certainly be a possible bug, yet it has never occurred. Almost no case is known where there was an unexplained result. The main one touted was when the two democrats lost in the USA but I read an interview with their election agent and even he said that the result was fair.

I agree we would not necessarily know if a subtle error had occurred but even then many small subtle errors would have been picked up during the existing checking, reconciliation and post election checking. This hasn’t happened.

While we cannot be sure there have been no errors, we can be sure there have been no major errors and that there has been no known errors and this is after 1,000,000,000 people have voted.

The facts and logic above are almost diametrically the opposite to what your statement says.

It might be true to say, “there may have been an error that we do not know about” but that’s a different matter altogether.

At the centre of all this differences of opinion lies probability. The anti-eVoting lobby exaggerate the risks in spite of the positive experiences of eVoting and this is a fundamental problem with many movements such as anti-MMR, anti-Fluoridation (which the Greens apparently oppose), anti-Nuclear Power, anti-Cassini etc..

“End to end testing” has become something like a mantra. I’ll repeat again that it’s not essential and anyway all any testing does is reduce the probability that there is an error. Even if we had end-to-end testing the anti-eVoting lobby wouldn’t accept it, the same as the anti-MMR do not accept the many studies done that prove MMR cannot be causing Autism.

If you do not have a scientific bent then studies and tests prove nothing, if you do they prove things to a certain probability. I cannot explain this further without going into an enormous rigmarole. I mentioned before a corollary of this is the fact that 1,000,000 people in Ireland do the Lotto each week when their chances of winning are so remote as to be virtually non existent. If they understood basic maths, numbers and probability then very few would do the Lotto.

where you got the 'end to end tests with large volumes of data' in your earlier post

The report specifically says that large volumes of data were used and that the entire data set used in the pilot test was also used to test the system. Quite frankly that’s another red herring as even a small sample of data can prove that most of the software works. Large volumes only prove matters related to handling large volumes!

You say this as if the lack of a test involving the entire population somehow invalidates the other tests. All that would do is give us a higher probability again than we already have that it works.

e.g.

If I write a program that takes in numbers and counts them and I run 10 tests with different numbers and it passes the test then I am very confident that it will handle any set of numbers. Another test using 50 sets will not particularly increase the probability that I will find a bug. Neither will a test of 1000 numbers. If I then test with a very large data set that probability just increases a little bit further that it will handle all eventualities. You would think that the programmers or their superiors who wrote this software did no testing. They would be well aware of the implications that a cock up would be for the share price of their company. All programmers are aware of the embarrassment of a bug being exposed, can you imagine the embarrassment of the Greens becoming a government?

Your arguments only hold water if the programmers are incompetent, corrupt and part of a conspiracy – the same argument as the anti-MMR people.

ecksor

Internet voting shouldn't be part of this debate, but the biggest obstacle to it right now is the fact that DoS attacks are easy to coordinate and difficult to defend against. The trustworthiness of the client systems is a big problem in that a vote could be easily stolen without the voter realising, although I can see that been solved in the next 10 years (maybe).

Out of curiousity, where does Peter Neumann state that he opposes e-voting?

williamgrogan

Look at his lecture which is on Video and downloadable. Someone linked to it some months ago. Read what he says.

I can't be sure he said the exact words "I AM OPPOSED TO eVOTING" but any reading of what he says clearly indicates this. Unless we are going to get into an argument of what exactly is meant by opposing something.

I mean if someone says, "Internet voting is madness", does that mean they are opposed to it?

If you use the same logic as the anti-eVoting or anti-MMR people, that while there is a theoretical risk then a system is not 100% safe, we must stop using all systems.

As regards Internet Voting, I think we could go ahead with it sooner rather than later. We could start by using it for more regular votes rather than the government relying on Sky TV’s system or what the Irish Times says. Have they had a DoS? Maybe charge 10 cent to vote. We could try say the local council elections, maybe stagger them. Hold the election over say 1 month. The reason manual elections are held on one day is almost certainly due to the fact that polling booths must be set up and manned. Make DoS a crime punishable by imprisonment, it should be anyway. It’s a form of vandalism. Issue everyone with a voting thingy that plugs into the USB slot, like a dongle.

It’s always easy to knock new ideas, I think that’s why individuals acting as entrepreneurs succeed where committees fail. They can take risks. Try and get a committee to stick its neck out. What has the ISS done vis a vis the Carmody situation? Why haven’t we organised a demo outside pharmacies selling Homeopathic remedies? As a friend of mine used to say, F**k the begrudgers. Its even evolution, an individual gets a mutation and is slightly better than his peers so he survives and his DNA prospers while the “safe pair of hands/lets not try anything until we are 100% sure” lot die out. Maybe that’s why some people are socialist, too scared to take a risk. I wonder are civil servants and the employees of the Public Service and the semi-state genetically programmed to be averse to risk? Its interesting that the main pro-eVoting statement made by anyone before the thing was shelved BY A COMMITTEE was from successful business men.

J. Joyce

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I can't be sure he said the exact words "I AM OPPOSED TO eVOTING" but any reading of what he says clearly indicates this. Unless we are going to get into an argument of what exactly is meant by opposing something.

If I get around to watching that and find that you're lying once again I will ban you from boards.

Make DoS a crime punishable by imprisonment, it should be anyway. It’s a form of vandalism.

What difference will that make? How many people were caught in the recent cases of extortion on the Irish betting sites? Money laundering is ridiculously easy if you're moving funds to certain parts of the world.

Issue everyone with a voting thingy that plugs into the USB slot, like a dongle.

More vague hand waving.

williamgrogan

Here's what I said after looking at it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1488426#post1488426

williamgrogan

More vague hand waving

Obviously a few words to describe a device to help ensure that only those entitled to can vote would be by its nature vague. Its obvious what I mean.

Is it not possible to devise a device that plugs into a USB slot that contains an encrypted file that can be used to validate an eVote? Maybe like a flash drive?

J****s I only made a suggestion!

PS

Can u email me the details re the money laundering?

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Obviously a few words to describe a device to help ensure that only those entitled to can vote would be by its nature vague. Its obvious what I mean.

Since you've done the same thing with problems that haven't been solved by anyone (although you claim that you'll solve them them for a few hundred grand) then I find any vague descriptions of components of any security protocol to be dubious.

Is it not possible to devise a device that plugs into a USB slot that contains an encrypted file that can be used to validate an eVote?

Actually, this sort of technology does exist although I can't comment on the cost/benefit of it or associated risks for this particular application. Probably not too expensive for a decent setup the way that industry has been going. Judging by the DoE's recent performance we'd probably get an overpriced and easily tamperable with device and be called 'anti smartcard' or similar if we complained though.

Maybe like a flash drive?

:eek:

williamgrogan

Here's an interesting quote from Peter Neumann from a radio program.

Host: --And one of the plans that they've had for getting rid of nuclear waste is to rocket it to the sun. Now it seems to me that we're talking here about a multiplication of errors. One really has to wonder whether or not this is a reasonable solution to a deadly problem that we've got on our hands right now.

PN: Yeah. It's interesting. It's certainly not directly computer related, but that's never stopped me from commenting on anything before!

The key problem here I think, is we have to look at the problem, whatever it is, in a very global perspective. If you look at nuclear power in the small, you say "Gee, it's cheap, it's clean, it's efficient, and it will solve our energy problems for the next, uh, how many thousand years." If you look at it in the large, you come to the conclusion that there is no solution to the waste disposal problem, there are serious long term health effects. Certainly the Chernobyl experience is not very reassuring. They're now talking about what, thirty thousand people who've died at this point? The number keeps rising, whatever it is.

Host: Yeah.

WG: Yeah indeed. Peter Neumann thinks 30,000 died from the accident at Chernobyl. Now I am going to break the rules and post this on the Chernobyl thread.



Maybe is he overestimated the risk, and btw he is a risk specialist, of the death rate from Chernobyl by 1,000 fold, maybe he has overestimated the risk of eVoting by a similar amount.

Getting back to my constant point that people with agendas have to be treated with extreme caution. PN lives by exaggerating risk. He clearly has done it re Chernobyl.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Here's an interesting quote from Peter Neumann from a radio program.

Source?

WG: Yeah indeed. Peter Neumann thinks 30,000 died from the accident at Chernobyl. Now I am going to break the rules and post this on the Chernobyl thread.

Your quote doesn't indicate that he was sure of his figure there, only that he seemed sure it was rising.

Maybe is he overestimated the risk, and btw he is a risk specialist, of the death rate from Chernobyl by 1,000 fold, maybe he has overestimated the risk of eVoting by a similar amount.

30 people died as a result of chernobyl? Estimating the death rate of something that happened in the past isn't to do with risk, which deals with the possibility of things happening in the future. It's an input into a risk assessment at best.

I don't know a lot about nuclear power, but considering your dogmatic attitudes towards all sorts of topics on this forum I'm a little bit alarmed by the idea that you've been carrying this chernobyl hobby horse around for the last 18 years. When the current state of e-voting has been shown to be clearly unacceptable I can't help thinking that you'll be still posting incoherently about it well into the 2020s.

williamgrogan

Neumann opinion on eVoting.

So in the aftermath of the Florida election, we see sort of a feeding frenzy of belief that technology will be able to solve the problem. This is clearly not the case.
The primary conclusion from the above discussion of realizability is that certain criteria elements are inherently unsatisfiable with assurance that can be attained at an acceptable cost. Systems could be designed that will be operationally less amenable to subversion. However, some of those will still have modes of compromise without any collusion. Indeed, the actions of a single person may be sufficient to subvert the process, particularly if preinstalled Trojan horses or operational subversion can be used. Thus, whereas it is possible to build better systems, it is possible that those better systems can also be subverted. Consequently, there will always be questions about the use of computer systems in elections. In certain cases, sufficient collusion will be plausible, even if one is not a confirmed conspiracy theorist.

I am adamantly opposed to the use of fully electronic or Internet-based systems for use in anonymous balloting and vote tabulation applications

Providing sufficient assurances for computerized election integrity is a very difficult problem. Serious risks will always remain, and some elections will be compromised. The alternative of counting paper ballots by hand is not promising. But we must question more forcefully whether computerized elections are really worth the risks, and if so, how to impose more meaningful constraints.

He says Open Source is not in itself enough.

He says that Formal Methods are no use because the software created by Formal methods can be replaced.

He says that VVAT is not enough.

People who want Internet voting, “are out of their minds.”

Referring to eVoting, he said “we have created a monster”.

“The problem of creating a reliable eVoting system is impossible to solve.”

“Sellers of eVoting systems are snake oil salesmen.”

WG: So, I think I can say that PN is not exactly the worlds leading exponent of eVoting, but we can see on the one other subject that I read his comments he exaggerated a thousand fold.

williamgrogan

The radio show is here

williamgrogan

I don't know a lot about nuclear power, but considering your dogmatic attitudes towards all sorts of topics on this forum I'm a little bit alarmed by the idea that you've been carrying this chernobyl hobby horse around for the last 18 years. When the current state of e-voting has been shown to be clearly unacceptable I can't help thinking that you'll be still posting incoherently about it well into the 2020s.

Wow!

Is pointing out the truth dogmatic?

The WHO say less than 40 died at Chernobyl, are they dogmatic?

As regards the hobby horse, yes I have been carrying it around for 18 years along with attacking the religious nuts who were abusing children 18 years ago and hadn’t been outed, the anti-NP people who through their activities have helped promote Global Warming, the Homeopathic and real Snake Oil salesmen. I have also been actively fighting smoking, the incarceration of innocent Irishmen and a few other odds and sods such as the promotion of non religious schools. My children went to the 2nd one that opened in the Republic.

Have you a problem with any of that?

RainyDay

Oh William, you make it so easy. Your sad, desperate clutching-at-straws attempts to find some evidence to support your opinions are now quite painful. You've backed yourself into a corner where it is clear to all readers that you really have no evidence at all - just opinion based on misinformation.

And I'm not going to let your sad attempts to drag the debate off-topic onto nuclear power, MMR, fluoridation etc etc (where no doubt you can make up a whole new set of William's special 'facts') succeed. Let's stick to the topic in hand.

Originally posted by williamgrogan

Peter Neumann, specifically, opposes eVoting.

No, he doesn't. He opposes 'use of fully electronic or Internet-based system', i.e. by 'fully', he means without a paper audit trial. So he doesn't oppose 'all eVoting systems'. And I wouldn't describe him as one of the founders of VVAT, but that's another story.

Originally posted by williamgrogan

Rebecca Mercuri also opposes the idea of Internet voting”. Neumann has described Internet voting as “madness”, yet we now use the Internet for billions of dollars worth of commerce. I’m not saying its easy, but madness?

Stop trying to shift the goalposts. Your earlier comments referred to 'all eVoting systems', not Internet voting. That's a different story entirely.

So once again, your statement that the founders of VVAT oppose all eVoting systems is without foundation. Shame on you.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The exact figure is not important,

Then why did you quote it in your earlier post? Did you really think you'd get away with this stuff?

Originally posted by williamgrogan
and must result in some candidates being incorrectly elected because whatever the % is it is often far greater than the winning margins. How can you possibly deny or ask me to prove something so obvious? Are you seriously suggesting that when candidates have won by a handful of votes that the loss of say hundreds of votes due to the lack of validation has never resulted in a different outcome?

Funnily enough, just because William says that something must be the case doesn't make it the truth. Once again, you pose theoretical scenarios with no specifics. Tell us which candidates you believe were incorrectly elected. Tell us what the margin of victory was and how many votes were spoilt. And have a think about why the Senior Counsel for the other candidates who crawl over each & every spoilt vote looking for indications of a clear intent from the voter didn't go to court to get their own candidate elected?

Originally posted by williamgrogan

This statement is simply wrong. Its touted around the place but its incorrect.

There are many ways that we would know if something had gone wrong. For example we know that there never has been a problem where a leading candidate got no votes which would certainly be a possible bug, yet it has never occurred. Almost no case is known where there was an unexplained result. The main one touted was when the two democrats lost in the USA but I read an interview with their election agent and even he said that the result was fair.

I agree we would not necessarily know if a subtle error had occurred

Congratulations - you manage to contradict yourself within the space of just three paragraphs. It's not just a matter of subtle errors. There is no possibility of detecting any errors, because there is no audit trail. Even if a candidate has reasonable suspicion about a particular result, there is nothing that a court can do to investigate, because there is no audit trail.

Originally posted by williamgrogan

“End to end testing” has become something like a mantra. I’ll repeat again that it’s not essential

That’s a very interesting point of view. Funnily enough, the CEV (who have actually studied the Nedap/Powervote system in some detail, unlike yourself) disagree with you. As do I. And do remind me never to purchase any system that consists of more than 1 component from you, given your views on the necessity of end-to-end testing.

Originally posted by williamgrogan

If you do not have a scientific bent then studies and tests prove nothing, if you do they prove things to a certain probability. I cannot explain this further without going into an enormous rigmarole.

Is ‘rigmarole’ your term for makey-up facts & claims which have no foundation when you look under the surface? Hopefully not. But please do explain the point further – I’m really getting the hang of blowing away your vague generalisations one-by-one.

Originally posted by williamgrogan

I mentioned before a corollary of this is the fact that 1,000,000 people in Ireland do the Lotto each week when their chances of winning are so remote as to be virtually non existent. If they understood basic maths, numbers and probability then very few would do the Lotto.

Interesting to see you know as little about human nature as you do about eVoting. I guess they don’t let you out of the back rooms very often, do they? Playing the lotto isn’t about statistical probabilities. It’s about paying a small price for the rights to dream about money for that day.

Originally posted by williamgrogan

The report specifically says that large volumes of data were used and that the entire data set used in the pilot test was also used to test the system.

More fiction (perhaps we can call you William Grisham instead of Grogan now – what’s your next novel going to be about). The only reference to large volumes of test data in the CEV report refers to parallel testing, not end-to-end testing (page 19, section 4.1). Do you really not understand the difference between the two?

Originally posted by williamgrogan

You say this as if the lack of a test involving the entire population somehow invalidates the other tests.

I never said or implied this. Please listen to what I am saying rather that looking for hidden messages.

Originally posted by williamgrogan

If I write a program that takes in numbers and counts them and I run 10 tests with different numbers and it passes the test then I am very confident that it will handle any set of numbers. Another test using 50 sets will not particularly increase the probability that I will find a bug. Neither will a test of 1000 numbers. If I then test with a very large data set that probability just increases a little bit further that it will handle all eventualities.

Jeez – now this is really scary. Ever heard of boundary testing? Ever heard of creating test data designed to test specific scenarios? Please remind me NOT to let you look after testing any system that I’m ever involved with.

Originally posted by williamgrogan

As regards Internet Voting, I think we could go ahead with it sooner rather than later.

You again demonstrate your lack of understanding of human nature and the electoral process. The whole reason for getting people down to a ballot box where they make their vote in secrecy is to eliminate the possibility of voting under duress, where for example a family member pressurises their family to vote in a certain way. Non-secret voting also creates the possibility of vote selling & buying. Your plan for USB/Internet voting does not meet this requirement for secrecy. And of course, the data from last years UK trials show that these methods don’t increase the turnout, so don’t bother dragging up that old chestnut.

And the other ‘real world’ problem with your USB solution is fairly obvious – Not everyone has a PC!

Originally posted by williamgrogan

They would be well aware of the implications that a cock up would be for the share price of their company.

From the look of this Nedap share price graph, it looks like they are doing a fine job at cocking up their share price already. Their share price has been falling since public attention really focussed on what they had done in Ireland.
Do come back and post again when you have some real facts to talk about. And don't forget to tell us how many of the test reports you have actually read yourself?

williamgrogan

I notice RD, that you insult rate is inversely proportional to your ideas.

The last post was a record.

You accuse me of going off thread by mentioning MMR when the thread is called “Is pro-VVAT in the same category as anti-MMR”.

Surely the entire point of the thread hasn’t gone over your head?

Out of 11 or so quotes from Neumann you pick one and claim that it proves he is not anti-eVoting. Presumably you think that’s the weakest one.

However,

Let a=”I am adamantly opposed to the use of fully electronic…”

Let b=”He says that VVAT is not enough”

Then a+b=”He’s opposed to eVoting”

He quite obviously thinks that eVoting as a solution to voting is impossible to solve and the risk is not worth it.

Do you think that firing insults fools people into thinking that you might be right? That in the fog of insults your failure to prove your point will be obscured?

I see I’ve struck a nerve here. Obviously Peter Neuman is GOD, the lost god of Ecksor, Mr Risk Analysis himself or maybe Mr Impossible. The man who has overestimated the death rate at Chernobyl by a thousand. Not 1.25, not twice but 1,000 fold. And the number of deaths does not keep rising, no one is known to have died for years. It seems that he is anti-Nuclear Power as well as he says that, “there is no solution to the waste disposal problem.” Hasn’t he heard of vitrification and deep burial?

He thinks eVoting and Nuclear Power present us with impossible to solve problems. I’m clearly beginning to see the way that the old Prof thinks.

As regards the exact figure re known spoiled votes plus effectively spoiled ones further down the list, there is no exact figure as it will change for each election and each constituency. And exactly what it is in any given election is just related to the probability that the outcome will be different from what the electorate wanted. The higher it is the higher the probability that the wrong candidate gets elected.

Your comment re counsel crawling all over the votes indicates that you totally miss the point about the votes that cannot be used BUT are NOT counted as spoiled so I’ll explain again. Counsel cannot do anything about votes such as 1,2,2,3,4,5,6. However the voter made a mistake and his vote is lost because of the lack of validation. He is disenfranchised due to the lack of validation.

A vote like this 1,2,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 is not registered as spoiled. However if the candidate that is No 1 is elected with a large quota then his no 1 may not be used for that candidate but transfer to his no 2. However, his no 2 is in twice so doesn’t get counted and therefore that voter’s vote is lost. His wishes do not get recognised. If this happens often enough the sum of those lost votes will affect the outcome. The point is simple, I cannot see how you cannot understand it?

I made the point that there must be as many 1,2,2,3,4,5’s as there are 1,1,2,3,4,5 and 1,2,3,3,4’s etc.. therefore there will be hundreds(?) of votes that if needed cannot be used. The only way we would know for a fact is if we could get our hands on the votes and check. Obviously in most constituencies where the last person elected gets in comfortably, it won’t matter but where there is a tight finish it will affect the outcome and undoubtedly has, just as has the official spoiled votes. For it to be otherwise then all the official spoiled votes and the other ones further down would always have to balance across the candidates and as Mr Neumann keeps saying that’s impossible.

There is no possibility of detecting any errors

This statement is simply wrong. If we held and election and the FF candidates got no votes then we would know for a fact that it was wrong and there would be an investigation. Furthermore even a suspicion would lead to an investigation of the software and procedures. The point is there never has even been a suspicion. It is true to say that the pilot study went well and there is no suspicion that the software performed other than as required. This IS a major successful test whether you like to go into denial about it or not.

The CEV took on board the opinions of those that made submissions. I doubt that most of the committee ever heard the expression, (or is it mantra?), end-to-end testing before they sat on the committee.

People do the Lotto because they think they may win. They cannot calculate the odds, which are atrocious. I might add that the people who spend the most have the least to spend. A friend of mine who has a general grocers shop in working class area tells me that ½ his turnover is composed of cigarettes, the Lotto and mobile phone top-ups. Socrates described Lotteries as a tax on idiocy. The reason they work is that people are very poor at estimating probability.

That is why so many people fear that eVoting & MMR are too risky. They are not.

“Interesting to see you know as little about human nature as you do about eVoting”, but you miss my point, most people are opposed to eVoting BECAUSE of human nature and not because of any understanding of the risks, just like Neumann. Neumann obviously, like a lot of academics, cannot understand that we cannot make anything perfect. He may strive for it and as a by product produce good ideas but we still must advance irrespective of his theoretical fears.

No doubt Mr Neumann would be unhappy with the headlines in yesterday’s Guardian, “Blair Reignites Nuclear Debate”. No doubt the Neumann’s of this world will be out in force again soon trying to prove that NP poses an unacceptable risk while in the meantime we all cook in a CO2 fog.

And the other ‘real world’ problem with your USB solution is fairly obvious – Not everyone has a PC

Missed the point again RD, Internet voting will be additional to the normal method until some day, not too far away now, when everyone does have ACCESS to a PC. The idea is to increase voter turnout.

Regarding Nedap’s share price, well if you bought them at 15 they would now be worth 22, not a bad profit in a year? The Luddites didn’t do much for the share price of Nuclear Power or GMOs either.

The point I am making in this thread is that people often oppose or support things for the wrong reasons. That’s why the Catholics have Catholic children. Very often they take a position early on based on their group profile and their genetic disposition and then cement this position through selective reading, hanging around in boards where everyone agrees with everyone else, they read selectively (the Guardian v the Telegraph) etc..

I’m sure I’m not different. Since a child I have been pro-technology, pro-science, future looking. When eVoting came along I saw it as progress. So I too read selectively, I look for arguments that support my position but obviously I do not hang around in boards where everyone agrees with everyone else.

I’m off for a couple of weeks where there are no PCs.