[Discuss] Govt Source Code Policy

[Steve Litt]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:36:55 -0400
Dan Ritter <dsr at randomstring.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 12:32:55PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 16:01:39 -0400
> > "Greg Rundlett (freephile)" <greg at freephile.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > It's WRONG that elections are not held on verifiable free software
> > > platforms.    
> > 
> > Richard Stallman disagrees with you. About a decade ago, I copied
> > him on a LUG thread about Free Software on voting machines.
> > Stallman wrote back that NO computer software, and therefore no
> > computers, should count votes, because any software can be tampered
> > with. Voting and vote counting should be done the same way as
> > before computers were invented.
> > 
> > After giving it some thought, I agree with him. I come from
> > Chicago, so I know how easy it is to give President Kennedy 8000
> > extra paper ballot votes. Heck, my great great great grandfather
> > still votes several times in every Chicago election. But compared
> > to the never-discovered corruption that can be done by hacking
> > software, ballot stuffing and hanging chad are minor
> > inconveniences.  
> 
> I'm perfectly good with the current method we use in Waltham: you
> fill out your paper scantron ballot, you put it in the machine
> yourself, the vote counter increments, and your ballot is saved
> in the lockbox for recounts or verification.
> 
> It involves software, but not much.
> 
> -dsr-

The system you articulate would be even better if it gave the voter a
receipt showing his/her choices. I like the lockbox for the paper
ballots.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
April 2016 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century
http://www.troubleshooters.com/rl21