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

johnlambe

Originally posted by williamgrogan:
We do agree on one thing, he said "that the exit polls are extremely important" as a check on the voting. Does this not solve the problem that detecting a fraud big enough to put the Monster Raving Looney Party into power will fail the Exit Poll test and deter someone from hacking?

If the election results didn't agree with the exit polls, how would you know which was wrong?

I honestly believe that many of those who "follow" Mercuri & Co and are not critically analysing their positions and are slavishly following them because they are "Doctors".

Incidentally, I was in favour of VVAT before I researched it and before I knew what it was called or heard of Rebecca Mercuri (and long before evoting was considered in Ireland).

Computers land aeroplanes, run the transfer of money internationally, handle the sales of all shares and now most businesses, allow robots to trundle around and explore Mars and will be successfully used for voting despite the doom mongers.

Don't you think that if a plane crashed due to a software bug, it would be detected that some failure had occurred? Even if they didn't isolate the cause, it would be obvious that the plane had crashed, wouldn'it it?
The same does not apply to rigging an election.

Boring article about how 6,000,000 people in Texas eVoted without a problem.

More good news about eVoting:

That fact that people (especially non-technical people) who used it didn't have a problem with it doesn't prove that it is safe.
If the system was successfully rigged, people might still be happy with it because they didn't know.

Funny, I wouldn’t trust a person manually counting as far as I could throw him either.

If you could watch him while he was counting, you wouldn't have to trust him. (By the way, votes are counted by pairs of people).

An irony is that "big-business" that supplies the vast majority of eVoting machines must be falling about the place laughing at the notion that they will "be required" to supply several million dollars worth of printers, cabinets & curtains

We don't need any more printers - each Nedap machine already has one.
I already pointed out that noone in Ireland - as far as I know - is calling for curtains, etc. and even Dr. Mercuri explicity states that these are not essential.
Of course, it would seem to be good for Nedap and Powervote, but they are opposed to adding a VVAT.

Does Mr Lambe think there was a hardware or software problem when the "134 votes went missing" in Florida or the "upset after 128 years when two Republicans got elected in the states?".

The fact that there were failures that were not caused by hardware or software problems does not prove that hardware and software problems are not possible.

Does he think Diebold were trying to "Rob Georgia"? These slanted stories are being quoted as "evidence" of machine failures when there are perfectly valid and non conspiratorial reasons why those events happened as they did.

Are you talking about the leaked memos about how much they would charge for adding a VVAT?
Surely that wasn't presented as a machine failure.

I did come up with an estimate and explained where I got it. I think several thousand per DRE is not unreasonable.

ES&S manufacture a DRE machine which prints a VVAT. It's fairly new and the last I heard was that it wasn't used anywhere yet (last year). (I don't know whether it's on their web site. I spoke to a representative by phone). Apparently, it doesn't cost "several thousand".
A better-established option is optical scan.

williamgrogan

If the election results didn't agree with the exit polls, how would you know which was wrong?

This has to happen first.

What would you do in a paper based election? Count the votes again? That would prove nothing accept they were counted correctly. Then what would you do? This is the “Recount Myth”. If there was a dramatic difference that was unexpected the computers & data could be checked. The same as any accountant would do if there was a discrepancy in his computerised accounts.

Is John Lambe one of these people who still adds up a column of figures manually after doing so on his calculator? We all did that for a while 20 years ago. I have to hang my head in shame and admit I took a receipt (but out of sheer habit) from ATM’s until this debate started.

The fact that there were failures that were not caused by hardware or software problems does not prove that hardware and software problems are not possible

There were no failures, people just didn’t vote. 128 out of 10,000. Nor do 128 people deciding that there were no candidates that they would vote for indicate any problem with the computers.

Rob-Georgia was a zip file discovered by a hacker on (I think) Diebold’s server. The rumour went around that this was part of a conspiracy to rob the people of Georgia (USA) of their votes by rigging the election. It’s part of the same mad conspiracy theories that equate with “The Face on Mars” or “Area 51” or one I read yesterday where in a state in Nigeria local preachers convinced the government to stop giving out Polio vaccine because big business in the USA had made it to make Muslim girls sterile or the Catholic Church spreading the rumour that condoms had holes in them big enough for the Aids virus to get through.

Do you really think that it makes sense to replace a system where a paper ballot is produced, stored securely, carted to a count centre, counted manually with a system where a paper ballot is produced, stored securely, carted to a count centre, counted manually PLUS electronically? How many marks from 10 would a Systems Analyst get for designing such a system?

Optical scan is even less reliable and certainly more old fashioned than touch screen.

It is the paper, isn’t it? You just love the physical reality of it.

PS

I see my name is listed immediately after your organisation's in the commission's list of those who made submissions.

PPS

At least the two of us use our names unlike the other pseudos. Why do they hide?

williamgrogan

To which I counter that you are the one that tries to make the argument that the risk is acceptable and even negligible - so you prove it! I did offer to try to work out a risk assessment on this forum in open discussion, but you discontinued that. I don't know how far that would go, but it would be an interesting way of discussing the issues surrounding e-voting in my opinion.

I’m not a mathematician. I’m just a programmer; you have to hand it to us.

I do think this is a valid area for investigation. I base my assessment of the risk on my 30 years work with computer systems. I have seen them go wrong but after working for many years your experience tells you that the type of bug that would produce a change of government but not be detected in a system designed by professionals is very low. Data is actually very robust. I have rarely seen data lost because software contains checks to ensure that this doesn’t happen, for example that data is not accidentally overwritten. It should be bordering on impossible in a very simple basic data capture exercise like voting. As I said if there is a cock up the Minister resigns and we sue the company and buy another system, the same as anyone else would in similar circumstances. In my opinion printing all the ballots and counting them is bordering on insanity. And I am adamant that calling for such a solution is pathetic and obviously so.

I keep making the point as to why people hold the opinions they do. Everyone thinks it’s based on sound rational thinking but as we all disagree with each other then that cannot be the answer. Maybe I trust computers because I have 30 years experience of their errors and realise that they are very stable and maybe Mercuri & Co who are academics (Mercuri drew up the Mercuri Cabinet for her PhD thesis) have a different attitude because they work in the area of computer security and live 24 hours a day with the ideas of security, failure etc..

It has been pointed out that the risks are clearly two fold; bugs and human corruption. They have to be analysed separately. I think the possibility of human corruption is, or at least can be made, extremely remote by normal physical security plus whatever software/version control checks are in place.

I think we both agree that a much better computerised audit system is possible and the loading of all voting data onto the web would be great and I cannot see a downside. It would provide enormously useful information and would be a major improvement in democracy. The political parties could analyse this data and gain a lot of information as to how people are thinking and this would help formulate strategy. Ironically the spoiled vote lobby could then vote in a manner that would send a clear message to the politicians as to how they feel, e.g. vote in candidate alphabetical order to indicate a plague on all your houses. This could then be “counted” by the public. It makes the joke of ticking “I’m a Jeddi” on the census look feeble. I said the eVoting would throw up new ways of thinking and voting and this is an example of what I mean.

Now back to work, I’ve bugs to fix.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
This has to happen first.

What would you do in a paper based election? Count the votes again? That would prove nothing accept they were counted correctly. Then what would you do? This is the “Recount Myth”. If there was a dramatic difference that was unexpected the computers & data could be checked.

How? There's no verified data to check against.

williamgrogan

There was two questions there.

How would you check a discrepency with the current paper ballots? In other words what would we have done in the past if the Exit Poll differed greatly then we counted the paper again and confirmed that it was counted OK? What would we have done then?There might have been ballot stuffing or vote robbing but there is no way to prove it. The same answer applies with eVoting, allthough I would argue it's much harder with eVoting to attack the system.

What verified data is there with the paper ballot? If someone wants to and can get at the electronic system they can corrupt the votes BUT the same applies to the paper ballots.

This is why I call it the "Recount Myth". All recounting does with paper is confirm that the humans did count correctly. They actually find this extremely difficult and the proof of this is that the recounts are always different. There is no need for this with a computer, though it can be done.

No one has answered a related question; what would we do if we did use VVAT, did a ramdom test and there was a difference and then we checked the computers and they were OK? This level of checking MUST fail as it's endless. Surely Godel's Theorem applies to endless testing as well?

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I base my assessment of the risk on my 30 years work with computer systems.

Ok. That assessment is still qualitative rather than quantitative.

I have seen them go wrong but after working for many years your experience tells you that the type of bug that would produce a change of government but not be detected in a system designed by professionals is very low.

I agree with this. However, considering the stakes, we don't know if it is low enough. Considering that there is an effective way of mitigating it, it is arguable if it is ever low enough that we don't have to put a mitigation tactic in place.

We're not just talking about the possibility of a bug, but also tampering. From that point of view, analysing the risk changes again because we don't have a clear threat profile or historical information about incidents from which to start.

In my opinion printing all the ballots and counting them is bordering on insanity. And I am adamant that calling for such a solution is pathetic and obviously so.

I keep making the point as to why people hold the opinions they do. Everyone thinks it’s based on sound rational thinking but as we all disagree with each other then that cannot be the answer.

You're the rational one and we're the irrational ones?

It has been pointed out that the risks are clearly two fold; bugs and human corruption. They have to be analysed separately. I think the possibility of human corruption is, or at least can be made, extremely remote by normal physical security plus whatever software/version control checks are in place.

How do we ensure a transparant and safe build process when the sysem is proprietary? I'm not willing to take this on trust either, I want documentation!

I think we both agree that a much better computerised audit system is possible

Possible, yes. Some have been developed but not accepted yet. Whether the public at large would be happy with them is a different matter.

and the loading of all voting data onto the web would be great and I cannot see a downside.

This is a different argument, but one possible downside has been painted in the form of schemes using the lower priority votes as a way for a person to effectively sign their vote and prove how they voted. So, vote buying or coercion becomes an easier prospect.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
How would you check a discrepency with the current paper ballots?

I'm happy to accept that a paper ballot is verified by the voter at vote time. This is not easily checkable by a voter in the case of a computing system.

There might have been ballot stuffing or vote robbing but there is no way to prove it.

The mitigation and detection of those events is developed though.

The same answer applies with eVoting, allthough I would argue it's much harder with eVoting to attack the system.

Ok, here you seem to be saying that there is no way of checking with the eVoting system, but the benefit is that it is harder to interfere with the eVoting system. How do you argue that? If any of the systems developing this software is Internet connected then I'd immediately say that it is too vulnerable for a voting system that must not misbehave, because if it does we have no idea that it did.

What verified data is there with the paper ballot? If someone wants to and can get at the electronic system they can corrupt the votes BUT the same applies to the paper ballots.

Paper votes are verified by the voter at vote time. Tampering with them has very definite tangible effects.

No one has answered a related question; what would we do if we did use VVAT, did a ramdom test and there was a difference and then we checked the computers and they were OK? This level of checking MUST fail as it's endless. Surely Godel's Theorem applies to endless testing as well?

Yes, it means that we can't definitely say that the computers are OK.

PaulP

ecksor:

I am more for you than against you but "I'm happy to accept that a paper ballot is verified by the voter at vote time" is not very much good. It's not what the voter has done that matters but what votes the officials count. With paper ballots someone could add fake votes, or remove or tamper with valid votes. The question is whether it is easier to interfere with the current system or with any proposed alternative.

ecksor

Originally posted by PaulP
ecksor:

I am more for you than against you but "I'm happy to accept that a paper ballot is verified by the voter at vote time" is not very much good. It's not what the voter has done that matters but what votes the officials count.

Yes, but most voters are capable of making sure that they have used their vote properly and of checking this for themselves before dropping the slip into the ballot box. The voter has every opportunity to satisfy themselves that their intention has been accurately recorded. Preventing that data from being tampered with is a separate task to trying to ensure that it was accurately recorded to begin with.

I understand that people do make errors nonetheless, and I agree that the e-voting system could prevent wasted votes due to invalidly marked ballots.

With paper ballots someone could add fake votes, or remove or tamper with valid votes. The question is whether it is easier to interfere with the current system or with any proposed alternative.

Unless someone is making the argument that the system is so flawless and resilient as to not need an audit trail for resolving disputes, I see them as separate questions. Assuming that something could go wrong, then this discussion should be about auditing in the event that something does go wrong.

Of course it has meandered and I've let myself get dragged from the main point myself.

ecksor

I should also point out that it could become a somewhat bizarre argument too in that VVAT as things stand requires paper and electronic data to be handled in which case the tampering issues comes right back again except this time it has direct relevance in discussion of tampering with the audit trail (the proposed non-paper systems try to escape this).

The core of my position is that we must have an acceptable audit trail. I don't care if it's paper or not but I haven't seen an acceptable alternative to paper VVAT proposed.

johnlambe

Originally posted by williamgrogan
This has to happen first.
What would you do in a paper based election? Count the votes again?

You would have the same problem in the paper system in this situation, of course.
The point is that a VVAT (even a completely paper system) makes it much less likely that we would find ourselves in this situation.

Is John Lambe one of these people who still adds up a column of figures manually after doing so on his calculator?

No.
It never occurred to me to do so. I suspect that subconsciously, I thought that people would not have very much to gain by tampering with my calculator.

There were no failures, people just didn’t vote. 128 out of 10,000. Nor do 128 people deciding that there were no candidates that they would vote for indicate any problem with the computers.

Rob-Georgia was a zip file discovered by a hacker on (I think) Diebold’s server.

Okay, those stories were badly researched, if not paranoid, but that does not prove or disprove anything about the actual risks or the lack of transparency of DRE systems.


Do you really think that it makes sense to replace a system where a paper ballot is produced, stored securely, carted to a count centre, counted manually with a system where a paper ballot is produced, stored securely, carted to a count centre, counted manually PLUS electronically? How many marks from 10 would a Systems Analyst get for designing such a system?

Optical scan is even less reliable and certainly more old fashioned than touch screen.

It is more transparent.
Are you saying that being a more recent technology necessarily makes it better? (Note that I'm not saying that being newer is necessarily bad).

It is the paper, isn’t it? You just love the physical reality of it.

We've answered that before (on the other thread at least).

williamgrogan

The point is that a VVAT (even a completely paper system) makes it much less likely that we would find ourselves in this situation

You can't speak about how likely your fear is as you haven't computed it. Is this say less likely then 99.99% as opposed to 99.98%?

We've answered that before (on the other thread at least).

No doubt that's the democratic one that banned me for disagreeing!

here's a funny article in favour of eVoting, without dead trees.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001898724_lance09.html

williamgrogan

Are you saying that being a more recent technology necessarily makes it better

Interesting....... if you are always opposed to technology then you are always opposed to the latest technology or the technology of the age that you live in. Today you are opposed to eVoting, in the past to machines that spun cotton.

Would the pro-Dead-Trees people have been the same people with the flag in front of the first car or those that predicted that if we went faster than 50 miles an hour we couldn't breath? Opposed to Concorde?

There are those that are or were opposed to electrified Irish Traditional music, but I though Planxty & Moving Hearts were great.

ecksor

You can't speak about how likely your fear is as you haven't computed it.

If you provide a mechanism for checking the result, then I think it is reasonable to conclude that it deters someone from tampering which in turn makes it less likely that tampering will occur. It also seems less likely that there will be doubts over a surprising result if a check is in place. How much less likely is a different question that requires the calculations you mention, of course.

if you are always opposed to technology then you are always opposed to the latest technology or the technology of the age that you live in. Today you are opposed to eVoting, in the past to machines that spun cotton.

This doesn't answer the question that was put to you. I guess you're back on the luddite argument again.

A good example here would be the comparison between wireless networking and using cat5. Wireless is newer. I have a wireless AP lying around that I haven't configured for use yet in preference to a crappy length of cat5 cable plugged into my laptop. Does this make me a luddite?

williamgrogan

A good example here would be the comparison between wireless networking and using cat5. Wireless is newer. I have a wireless AP lying around that I haven't configured for use yet in preference to a crappy length of cat5 cable plugged into my laptop. Does this make me a luddite?

I have a wireless LAN but my PC is connected via a length of CAT 5. However the reason for this is that my son is in denial about the quality of the hub. He insists it works but it doesn't.

If you provide a mechanism for checking the result, then I think it is reasonable to conclude that it deters someone from tampering which in turn makes it less likely that tampering will occur. It also seems less likely that there will be doubts over a surprising result if a check is in place. How much less likely is a different question that requires the calculations you mention, of course.

I realy think we have gone through this.

Lets say that the government does a series of studies that show that MMR is safe within an acceptable risk or with a high probability. Do you agree that another batch of tests say with a larger sample would provide further proof? Do you agree that another batch of tests say with an even larger sample would provide even further proof? Do you agree that another batch of tests say with a larger sample would provide further proof? Do you agree that another batch of tests say with a larger sample would provide further proof? Do you agree that another batch of tests say with a larger sample would provide further proof? Do you agree that another batch of tests say with a larger sample would provide further proof? Do you agree that another batch of tests say with a larger sample would provide further proof? .........

Do you agree that a man with a flag walking in front of a car makes it nearly impossible to have a crash? Do we have a man with a flag walk in front of cars? No. Did we? Yes.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I realy think we have gone through this.

True, and I still don't see an acceptable method of audit or dispute resolution apart from a paper based VVAT being suggested!

williamgrogan

An excerpt from a letter to the Irish Times today says….”They have not realised that publishing the electronic tallies makes it easy to buy and sell votes. For example, in a 12-candidate STV election there are 479 million ways of voting 1 to 12. All that is needed for one person to buy another's vote is for the buyer and seller to agree on a set of preferences. The electronic tally will prove whether the seller voted as agreed…”

Say you need 10% of the votes in 10 close constituencies to change the government from its predicted outcome. You would need a conspiracy of approximately 20,000 people to agree to this scheme and then all of them to keep quiet forever. How many would you have to interview before one would refuse and give the game away? 5? 2?

A large percent would have voted for your party anyway! So maybe 40,000 would be closer to the figure.

How much would you pay them? €50 to sell their vote? So now the bill is €2,000,000.

Imagine the queue at your door after the election to collect their illegal gains. I estimate it would stretch 68 miles.

Even then that would only apply to the party predicted to come second. For the Monster Raving Looney party 50% of the population would have to join in.

Talk about a conspiracy! Talk about paranoia!

Luddism, pure and simple.

ecksor

This has nothing to do with VVAT, but I was under the impression that being able to prove how you voted is something that the previous system was designed to avoid for good historical reasons.

Why does there have to be a monetary value attached here? Is it inconceivable that an organisation such as a trade union might use it to exercise pressure upon individuals?

(even if we did go with the money angle, 2 million to affect the government is a bargain in my opinion).

williamgrogan

What's to stop someone with a mobile phone which has a camera photographing their paper ballot and using that proof to sell their vote?

I thought that trade unions did advise members to vote for particular parties. They certainly financially support them.

A certain TD from the north side of Dublin used to pay constituents ESB bills.

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
What's to stop someone with a mobile phone which has a camera photographing their paper ballot and using that proof to sell their vote?

I'm not sure. By the way, by suggesting that recent technology might have a downside, I think you now qualify as a luddite under your own unique criteria.

I thought that trade unions did advise members to vote for particular parties. They certainly financially support them.

A certain TD from the north side of Dublin used to pay constituents ESB bills.

Ok ... which would make it even more important that we don't make it easy to prove how you voted.

williamgrogan

What another interesting “non-story” the latest anti eVoting scare mongering is. Of course anti-technology scare mongering from the Green Religion is to be expected anyway.

I listened to the Returning Office, John Fitzpatrick, on RTE this morning and the following is a synopsis of what he said.

He said there was always a difference and that in his 28 years experience he has never seen an election without differences.

The figures given to the department were pre-audited figures; afterwards they submitted the reconciled numbers which had only “minor discrepancies” and these were on par with the discrepancies in the 4 “manual” constituencies he also looked after. He said, “There was no problem”.

He thinks people do not always put their vote in the box and that the presiding officer sometimes forgets to strike out a name. [In fact the latter must happen with humans involved.]

A critical point he made was that heretofore in previous manual elections those figures with the 2.5% discrepancies would not have been submitted to the department. They would have been reconciled first. With the pilot eVoting election they decided to submit them anyway.

Other “problems” were just the normal computer pilot/testing/training type scenarios. All these minor operational problems were resolved by the time of the next vote, the referendum. He said the “problems” were “peripheral”.

He was asked, “Are you happy with the eVoting system” and he replied, “Yes, … absolutely, no doubt”.

The story put out, was that the eVoting test was inaccurate and that there was a discrepancy of about 2.5% in the count. No mention was made of the fact that these discrepancies were normal and that the causes were as explained above. This is the usual “anti” type slanted technique, a technique that lies by omission. So, another similarity to the anti-MMR campaign.

If the anti eVoting campaign continues to lie I will continue to point it out.

To listen to the full interview click below

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0416/morningireland/morningireland2b.smil

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
This is the usual “anti” type slanted technique, a technique that lies by omission. So, another similarity to the anti-MMR campaign.

A 2.5% discrepancy is quite a bit different to the claimed 100% accuracy that was knocking around up to recently, no? If we're not getting the 100% accuracy that was claimed then the only benefits left are a faster result (although apparently the results will be delayed anyway in future to prevent shocks occuring like happened last time) and a potential for userfriendliness in making sure that certain types of errors don't contribute to spoiled votes.

If we are to accept a 2.5% discrepancy as good enough, can you prove (or even argue convincingly) that the discrepancy will always be in this region. Otherwise then surely an audit trail is required for checking purposes.

If the anti eVoting campaign continues to lie I will continue to point it out.

There's a difference between anti e-voting and campaigning for VVAT. If you're going to continue to lie about this, I'm going to continue to point it out. You'd never put a slant on your argument of course :rolleyes:

williamgrogan

A 2.5% discrepancy is quite a bit different to the claimed 100% accuracy that was knocking around up to recently, no?

The 2.5% discrepancy is the MANUAL discrepancy that occurs because the humans that check off the list of electors (I have done it myself when I was about 18 years old) are not accurate and couldn’t be expected to be accurate. It’s got nothing to do with the accuracy of the eVoting. It also may include other errors and the fact that some people take a ballot and don’t actually put it in the box. This is the level of inaccuracy that always exists in the manual system as well and has nothing to do with the actual voting at all.

Have they removed the, "Ooops another anti eVoting campagin", comment from the designer's web site to the not-really-Anti-eVoting web site link?

Victor

So we've spent all this money for no tangible benefit as one set of errors is replaced by another set of errors?

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
The 2.5% discrepancy is the MANUAL discrepancy that occurs because the humans that check off the list of electors (I have done it myself when I was about 18 years old) are not accurate and couldn’t be expected to be accurate. It’s got nothing to do with the accuracy of the eVoting. It also may include other errors and the fact that some people take a ballot and don’t actually put it in the box. This is the level of inaccuracy that always exists in the manual system as well and has nothing to do with the actual voting at all.

What difference does the cause of the discrepancy make? There's still no way to check the result if a discrepancy calls a result into question.

Have they removed the, "Ooops another anti eVoting campagin", comment from the designer's web site to the not-really-Anti-eVoting web site link?

This is relevant how? Is this your slant or is it just spin? (You've misquoted him there btw).

williamgrogan

I had two points in my post; the first was to inform people of the facts behind this latest scare mongering that threw the issue into a totally different light and two to draw attention to the way that the anti-eVoting lobby portrayed the “discrepancy”. A normal person reading the reports would think that votes were lost or that the DRE’s miscounted the number voting and of course that dishonesty was what was intended.

Both of you have failed to answer those points.

Do either of you think that they these initial reports as presented by the Greens and the “politics” web site were an honest report?

These manual check discrepancies are totally normal and do not relate to the count at all. It’s a red herring.

I misquoted him? Sorry can you tell us what the designer says then?

... must dash

ecksor

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I had two points in my post; the first was to inform people of the facts behind this latest scare mongering that threw the issue into a totally different light and two to draw attention to the way that the anti-eVoting lobby portrayed the “discrepancy”. A normal person reading the reports would think that votes were lost or that the DRE’s miscounted the number voting and of course that dishonesty was what was intended.

And you've put that opinion forward. I'm more interested in the fact that one way or another if something doesn't add up for whatever reason, then we must have a mechanism for checking in place.

Both of you have failed to answer those points.

So, let me get this straight. Your post was merely about discrediting the people you oppose rather than actually debating the relevance of the figures and their impact or otherwise upon the suitability of the new e-voting system? Surely the latter is the important bit here.

I misquoted him? Sorry can you tell us what the designer says then?

... must dash

You're the one who misquoted him so I'll let you recheck. It's still irrelevant and you're more than capable of checking the quote for yourself if you feel it is relevant.

dahamsta

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Have they removed the, "Ooops another anti eVoting campagin", comment from the designer's web site to the not-really-Anti-eVoting web site link?

Yet more spin from the spinner. My website is here, and the correct quotation would be: "Oops, another campaign, this time against Electronic Voting in Ireland." Perhaps it would have been better to say "against electronic voting in its current format", but I reckon that most people that visit my site would be intelligent enought to draw that conclusion themselves. Oh, and for the record, I personally am against Electronic Voting at this point in time. I don't think it can be secured adequately without manual recounts of a VVAT, which would defeat the entire purpose.

Yet more proof that the spinners arguments are facetious. He just twists the facts around to "prove" his entirely flawed arguments.

adam

williamgrogan

The point I was making, and the point still applies now that we have the exact wording, is that the web designer who constructed the web site understood it was an anti-eVoting campaign.

A point I have been making, and it has been challenged, is that most of those that are attacking the proposed eVoting system chosen by the Irish Government are in fact anti-eVoting. I certainly believe that anyone who claims that they are in favour of eVoting but only if it is done in parallel with a paper ballot is de facto opposed to Electronic Voting.

You at least have clarified your position. You presumably are against eVoting until it's perfect which the "experts" tell us is impossible.

I have consistently drawn a parallel between campaigns and how they are conducted such as the anti-MMR, the anti-water fluoridation, anti-Cassini Mission, pro-Homeopathy and the anti-eVoting campaign.

All these groups post anecdotal “scare” stories that turn out to be lies when examined in detail. If you are sure of your position you should not have to lie either overtly or via omission. For a TD to stand up in the Dail and say that there was a suspicion that the Democrats were robbed in Georgia because of eVoting and yet the campaign manager for the Democrats is on record as saying that they election was fair and above board is lying by any definition of what lying means. Ditto the Green statement yesterday. Most people reading the Green statement would have understood there was a problem with the software or the hardware yet the apparent problem was resolved when they reconciled the manual records kept by election officials and had nothing whatsoever to do with the how the voting was recorded or counted.

ecksor

If you are sure of your position you should not have to lie either overtly or via omission.

Since you'd be sticking to technical facts and details if you were sure of your argument against the need for VVAT I can only assume that you're not actually interested in discussing that any more.

Can you clarify your position? As I understand things you're sympathetic to having audit trail, but not a paper audit trail. Oddly enough, despite this position, you haven't proposed an acceptable alternative to paper.